North Carolina Food Inspector Rejects Little Girl's Home-Packed Lunch in Favor of Chicken Nuggets
Carolina Journal reports that a state inspector at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford, North Carolina, recently deemed a 4-year-old girl's home-packed lunch nutritionally inadequate, decreeing that it be replaced by food from the school cafeteria. The magazine, which is published by the John Locke Foundation, explains the source of this lunch review authority:
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.
But Jani Kozlowski, the division's fiscal and statutory policy manager, tells Carolina Journal the rejected lunch—which consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips, and apple juice—did in fact meet USDA guidelines, which call for one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables. By contrast, the meal the girl ending up eating thanks to the state employee's prodding—three chicken nuggets—did not. Adding insult to injury, the school billed the little girl's mother (who complained to her state representative but did not want to be publicly identified) $1.25 for the mandated substitution.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
WHY IS THERE A STATE INSPECTOR POKING THROUGH CHILDRENS' LUNCHES
On top of that first and most obvious question, why can a state inspector overrule the lunch a parent has sent with their child? WTF?!?
I don't know much about pre-kindergarten programs, does anyone here? The little I know is they are some kind of voluntary thing offered by schools. I got a flyer in my kids backpack one day saying if you have a pre-k kid and want to sign them up you could. It sounded like Head Start or something. And from what little I know about Head Start its supposed to be aimed at kids that need "a lil' help" in their development and is based on this "holistic" idea where the kid doesn't just get basic lessons but also gets things like lessons in how to eat properly and such to be up for school.
That's my guess, but don't let it stop the rage.
stop trying to be a voice of REASON
/drink!
I mean, shit. This is based on the mom's complaint. A mom who is probably embarrassed and pissed the school did this. Jesus, that's reliable and sure to be the entire story!
I dare you to concoct an alternate story in which the agent of the State is the hero.
Hey buddy, have you studied the pre-K food distribution in this country? Extensively? Because it sure sounds like you have. Tell us all about it.
Aww, Epi still butthurt because I pointed out that for all his toil, he not rich?
One day Epi, one day your effort and genius WILL be recognized!
Maybe it's all that monumental hard work you do that left you tired enough to bite for this poorly sourced story.
It's absolutely hilarious when a community college "professor" who spends much of his time goldbricking on H&R utters the words "hard work". That's like Michael Bay talking about style.
Dude, what in the world are you talking about?
You're very good at projecting. I guess working at that community college makes your ass really sore every day.
lol, Epi, lol. I guess at least in one sense you actually are "rich"
They are daycare programs, regulated by the state. A private daycare in my state the state where I live couldn't allow a child to bring their own food, "unless enough was brought for everyone", according to the paternalist regulations (a loophole would be medical or religious conflicts). It has nothing to do with "holistic" life skills.
The private daycare had to do this because of state regulations?
Can you cite that?
Because I had a private daycare do that, but it was because of THEIR rules.
And do you want to argue Head Start programs don't have nutrition aspects to them? Shit, they do lessons about how much sleep kids should get on school nights, proper studying environments and all kinds of stuff. They are supposed to be, you know, giving a "head start" to kids who are thought perhaps behind.
It's for the children! Also, to make sure they don't feel alone, we're going to give them a Big Brother! Yay!
Look, you can like or not like the idea behind Head Start, but it is a voluntary program that you enroll your kid in if you think they need the extra help to get ready for kindergarten. And since many educators think a kid has to be properly fed to learn well I can see why they might have a component in which they suggest or mandate certain meals and then maybe check them.
It's a voluntary program (well, if you don't care the taxpayer like me that has to pay for it).
Nothing a taxpayer pays for is voluntary, fuckstain
Lord you are an idiot, I said that.
"Can you cite that?"
No.
"And do you want to argue Head Start programs"
Yes. I do want to argue publicly funded "education" teaching how to be a good citizen bullshit.
"Colonel_Angus|2.14.12 @ 8:04PM|#
"Can you cite that?"
No."
What. A. Shock!
Don't worry, it certainly won't.
If the little bitch wants to eat, she will eat what is provided. Nothing more, nothing less!
Is this so hard to grasp.
I WANT MOAR
Hard to tell if either of the above is a Spoof Tony product.
Bringing you all the self righteous TEAM BLUE snottiness and cringing self abasement you've come to expect from your favorite reason.com commenter.
Student wants fourth fish stick; police called
According to the paper, the situation between the student and the staff became so overheated that help from the police was needed to calm things down.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"Please, sir, I want some more"
... Hobbit
Mrs. Obama was, of course, most interested in this story, and inquired as to the availability of a newsletter.
happy Valentine's day! Do you wanna look for some bilover to hook up tonight?===Datebi*c/O'm=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.
North Carolina's new program to promote homeschooling.
Don't kid yourself, that will be one reaction.
I would say unfuckingbelievable, but the sad part is that its not unfuckingbelievable and actually even predictable.
It was unfuckingbelievable - know why?
because this story, as reported by reason.com, is 100% inaccurate.
The kid was offered free milk. End of story. Everything else has been made up and blown completely out of proportion.
North Carolina always has been the pussy progressive Carolina. They're like redneck hipsters, ironically. Doing hippyish things but still leaving a trace of redneck characteristics in all the attempts at progressive action, in this case calling breaded chicken a square meal.
NC is not all Research Triangle and Asheville, just like Michigan is not all Detroit.
I know, wtf. NC has gone "blue" like once in the recent era...It's hardly a kingdom ruled by liberal hipsters.
Gone "blue" has nothing to do with it.
And "gone blue" has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of places and people out here that just wanna be left alone. Take what you think is yours, and you can take, we will be ok.
Well, parts of Michigan are Flint and Grand Rapids. I'm not sure if I get your point.
meant to include Flint. The point is MI also has the militia group they are about to hang on pikes. NC runs the whole gamut.
I get the vibe of non flyover North Carolina being for the most part "republican/conservative" trying to have a "look how innovative we are" image. Like they are trying to have characteristics sort of like a place like Seattle, but you still know you are in the redneck south.
Oh, it is redneck South. But, don't fool yourself into thinking redneck south doesn't like the government giving them stuff. They are getting tired of the state (small S state) telling them where they can stick a shovel in the dirt.
IOW, there are plenty of "my daddy was a democrat" rednecks that don't need to be turned into republicans. They are looking for another way. And, they got no problem thinking they need to be armed and fight for it.
That's the answer! Armed militia at the gates of schools making sure they NEVER offer a pre-schooler a free carton of milk again.
What a maroon!
I'm glad I have no kids to put through this shit.
We must never, never use the word fascist. Never. Besides, things are getting better and better. I heard the guy in the leather jacket say so.
shut up, fascist.
Yet another argument against public schools.
"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."
No, there's absolutely nothing that can go wrong when the government mandates stuff in the interest of health.
for that, you shall be shot.
I can already feel the 200+ posts of fury from this and the food inspector thing alone seems to warrant it, but I wonder if I'm the only one that thinks some caution might be needed before flying off based on a sole report from what is obviously a politically motivated foundation's blog...
I guess that's the wacky elitist in me...
If it is something that happened one time, it is worth "flying off" on the cunts who did it and the pussies who defended it, no matter who is reporting on it. Right now, you're sounding a little bit like a pussy who is defending statism, by trying to divert attention from the issue by criticizing the reporting source.
" Right now, you're sounding a little bit like a pussy who is defending statism"
Yes, I'm a pussy defending statism because, I dunno, I don't assume every unsourced blog article I read is true.
Jesus dude, grab a hold of yourself.
You have kind of this reputation for being a pussy, so I am justified in being extra hostile to your criticisms.
Yea "Colonel" I'm the pussy. Here you are crying about something you have no idea whether true or not...
I don't care if this is true or not. This shit has already happened. In general, schools interfering with what children want to eat is worth bitching about. I remember what school was like. Cunts like you worked there, claiming to have authority over me, and my parents.
"Colonel_Angus|2.14.12 @ 8:00PM|#
I don't care if this is true or not."
Oh, I'm sure that's the criteria for about half the things you get upset and rail about.
You're half right, professor. The first criteria for ALL the things I rail about is whether they piss me off.
I agree. Saw this article posted in an earlier thread. Biased source, anonymous victim. If true, this is some major stupid shit. But I take the article with a grain of salt. Something doesn't quite feel right about the story, the coverage and presentation.
"If true, this is some major stupid shit. But I take the article with a grain of salt."
+1000 to everything you said.
If true, then yes, RAGE. But shit, let's try to wait for some semblance of reliability first.
Lets assume some assholes out there want to do this kind of shit anyway, and take it out on them, because they deserve it for thinking about it.
So first you claim that it's perfectly fine paternalist government intervention, then you claim it's not true.
Team Red: "You can eat junk food, but you can't fuck."
Team Blue: Just the opposite.
The Food Police is the absolute worst part of the liberal coalition. They've gone from a reasonable "let's try to inform people and stop deceptive practices so people can make better decisions" to "aw, f*ck it, let's just make those decisions for them!"
Wait till you see my next career move. Turn your head and cough!
The Food Police is the absolute worst part of the liberal coalition.
I don't know. Do the letters E, P and A mean anything to you?
I like the EPA for the most part sloop. I'm partial to breathing clean air and drinking clean water...You might not like how they do it but the goal they have is not nuts.
The actual goal of food police types is to have everyone make choice X, Y and Z when it comes to eating.
But the EPA does so much more than that. Their wetlands crap and their arbitrary assignation of animals to the endangered species list has destroyed their credibility. Besides, the vast majority of people would keep air, water and soil clean without the EPA stepping in.*
*And if that were truly their goal, why are there so many set-asides and exemptions to the standards?
I like protecting endangered species and wetlands.
"Besides, the vast majority of people would keep air, water and soil clean without the EPA stepping in."
Yeah, just like no one would, say, sell tainted peanut butter that made their customers sick. It's irrational and all, y'know?
When has anyone intentionally done that? Because, you know, it would have a dramatic effect on their customer base. And if there's a regulatory agency to prevent those things, why does the company still have to pay damages when something goes wrong?
I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. Companies regulate themselves when a government doesn't. Otherwise they would not only lose their customers, but they would have to constantly be paying huge settlements to victims of their negligent practices.
"When has anyone intentionally done that?"
You're kidding, right?
"Companies regulate themselves when a government doesn't. Otherwise they would not only lose their customers"
And yet, this happens all the time.
I'm not kidding. Why would a company intentionally make their customers sick? Especially when there is competition in a robust free market economy? It would serve no purpose whatsoever.
Oddly enough, we see those things happen in regulated markets on a daily basis. I think you are just making an assumption they would be more frequent in an unregulated marketplace.
"Why would a company intentionally make their customers sick? Especially when there is competition in a robust free market economy?"
And yet it happens. Google "Tainted Peanut Butter" dude.
shit that was on purpose!
I just googled it. It happened under the watchful eye of government regulators.
And there should be criminal and civil liability for doing what they did. That would serve as a warning to those who would intentionally injure another.
And I personally think our legislatures and court system could handle that better than an unelected bureaucracy with the force of the law. It feels a little too "fascisty" to me.
So, companies do do this. But how? Why would a company intentionally make their customers sick? Especially when there is competition in a robust free market economy? How I tell you, how?
Look, the fact that it "happened under the watchful eye of government regulators" doesn't mitigate how it undercuts your "just so story" of how market actors work. Even though they could lose customers and get sued they still acted negligently and poisoned their customers. People cut corners, they discount the future bad consequences while focusing on the short term gains, etc. This happens.
You yourself admit a government role to fight this kind of thing, you just want that role to kick in at the end, after the fact (tort law). I hear you, that would provide a deterrent, but again why only punish after the fact and hope it deters the very natural tendency of people to take shortcuts and discount the future when we could possibly prevent some damage from ever occurring in the first place?
The answer could be "because in trying to prevent bad things from happen we could incur all kinds of costs in compliance." And again, I hear you. I'd be happy to agree that at some point any gains from regulation are wiped out from such costs.
why only punish after the fact and hope it deters the very natural tendency of people to take shortcuts and discount the future when we could possibly prevent some damage from ever occurring in the first place?
Because:
(1) It's not at all clear that we actually can prevent some damage from ever occurring in the first place. The natural human tendency to take shortcuts and discount the future isn't going to be substantially mitigated by bureaucracy susceptible to regulatory capture.
(2) Bureaucracy, even well-intentioned bureaucracy, costs real money that we don't have.
"I like protecting endangered species and wetlands."
I like using/eating my property.
We like making the process for disposing of hazardous waste so complex and the penalties for paperwork errors so severe that it's cheaper and a lower risk to slowly drive country backroads with the tank valves open.
Thank god for us!
Or to hire mexicans to fill trash bags with asbestos, and throw it in an unguarded waste bin.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a guarded waste bin...
I always check for cameras that might record my face or license plate, and make sure I am not getting anyone's attention. Either when I am putting things in or taking things out.
That's just plain silly. And patently untrue.
Patently untrue my ass! I got your fucking f-listed waste right here! And midnight dumping does happen and is becoming more common!
See if you can pry yourself away from the desk now and again!
I like protecting endangered species and wetlands.
Then donate to the Nature Conservancy.
Oh, wait. You like forcing other people to protect species and wetlands.
The wetlands stuff mostly is Army Corps of Engineers, and EPA has very little at all to do with the Endangered Species List. The ESL is run by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service.
What "wetlands crap" are you referring to?
I dunno about the "vast majority", but most, yeah, maybe. Maybe. I've been in the field of environmental management and regulation for about 25 years and I've seen a lot of it right up close and personal. A lot of people (probably the vast majority) are utterly ignorant as to the effects of a lot of stuff they casually toss out or even bury in their own back yards.
A hell of a lot of good has come from federal environmental legislation that likely would have taken far, far longer to come about otherwise - if it would have happened at all.
Don't forget why the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were passed - there were "killing smogs" in the U.S. in the 20th Century, and the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire.
Don't paint with too broad a brush or throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Is some of what EPA is doing today maybe going overboard? Yes, sure. Because those in charge are on board with the Obama administration's goal of getting rid of coal-fired power plants.
But like it or not, the majority of EPA's regulations have come about in response to valid issues and concerns - typically after some big incident brought an issue to national attention.
Don't forget also that EPA doesn't just come up with this stuff on its own. It acts only with the authority given to it by Congress. So if you don't like what EPA does, start with Congress, which created the enabling legislation under which EPA operates.
Such as?
In all seriousness, though, I do wonder what the "libertarian solution" to something like ground-level ozone is. The source is not only factories and power plants (which can be sued) but also motor vehicles. The issue is somewhat abated by the use of catalytic converters, but why would anyone use them absent regulatory coercion? They are pretty expensive.
I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious as a libertarian how I should suggest this problem be solved.
Regulation against actual toxic and damaging chemicals (carbon dioxide is neither of these) is an efficient way to deal with pollution. If the regulation strategy is used, industries should be prevented from releasing pollution in any way that will affect more than their own property.
"Ground level" ozone from consumer sources (vehicles, gasoline spillage) does not pose significant risk. Most regulation is ineffective and expensive for the level of risk. Catalytic converters should not have been mandated.
MNG, I appreciate your recognizing that there are bad to worst parts of the "liberal coalition". The step you talk about happens on both sides and libertarians and "reasonable" people are where the ability for those to force there wishes on us is where it has to stop.
And, yes, drink.
They've gone from a reasonable "let's try to inform people and stop deceptive practices so people can make better decisions" to "aw, f*ck it, let's just make those decisions for them!"
They always had the latter in mind but knew they couldn't get away with it. CSPI has been pushing their calorie ban claptrap for decades now.
You mean Team Blue says you can fuck junk food but you can't eat?
Only if you wear a condom, provided for you by Obamacare free of charge!
But what about free birth control for Twinkies? Will someone think about the Twinkies!!!
"With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that's the dairy," said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. "It sounds like the lunch itself would've met all of the standard."
So not the point.
I know, right? Her big issue is that the child's mother complied and should not have been called out, rather than the need for compliance at all.
This is the kind of shit I expect to hear about happening in my kids' schools, not in the south.
And her statement confirms the underlying story. The whining about sources and doubt that it happened seem, well, kind of weak, no?
"And her statement confirms the underlying story."
Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Pray tell how this statement "confirms the underlying story."
Well an officer of the state directly commented to the newspaper about the occurrence, not a hypothetical as far as I could tell. If that's not evidence of the story's veracity, I don't know what is.
It sounds like she commented on whether, if the complaint were true, the lunch should have been rejected.
It sounds like you're defending a statist prick, prick.
Me hate logic too!
"It sounds like the lunch itself would've met all of the standard."
Could be hypothetical, I guess. Sure doesn't come off that way.
It helps, of course, that the state regulations quoted in the article require exactly what is claimed to have happened.
So, we have regs that require X, a report that X was in fact done, and a state spokesman confirming what the regs require, and commenting on whether they were appropriately applied.
I see absolutely no reason to doubt the report, myself.
I hope the girl ate all her chicken nuggets, otherwise how could she get any pudding?
and by pudding we mean?
eat meat, get pudding. Sicko
It's Pink Floyd you daft punk.
Turn that shit down and do your homework.
I'm hot for... wait, no I'm not.
Are you implying that chicken nuggets are actually meat?
Have you seen KFC's new promos where they mock McDonald's saying "who would eat chicken nugget, what part of a chicken is the nugget" and then extols us to instead eat their popcorn chicken.
Hey KFC, what part of the chicken is "popcorn?"
Everybody knows chickens have fingers.
The undigested feed in the upper GI tract at the time of death.
See, MNG, that's one thing that is so infuriating... you post a good line like the one above, then dive back into the ditch and say "meh, so the kid *may* have had to eat school food, but I don't trust the source of the story so I'm gonna dump on it".
Jesus, pick a side already.
Insect parts count as meat.
Check this out, (from the Nuggets story at Hotair) a school official in Michigan reminding parents that they do not, in fact, know best.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/sc.....t-children
Can't wait to hear Mingey and Tony Terrific defending this whore.
That poor woman, I am sure she spent hours regretting that statement. She probably had such a promising career ahead of her spouting that kind of stuff in the privacy of committee meetings and cocktail parties, but...
Ironically I see nothing particularly malevolent in her testimony. Just an overpaid government bureaucrat flailing wildly in a committee meeting. She will go no higher.
What's funny to me about that lady is how she reminds me of so many other soulless empty pantsuits that infest not just the education system but the government in general.
SHE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS SHIT TOO, which is the more depressing part. She's not just saying it for a paycheck.
Projection is a bitch mistress.
Pitchforks. Torches. Tar. Feathers. Cleansing, cleansing flame.
Wait - I noticed this in the article:
"When the girl came home *with her lunch untouched,* [emphasis added] her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste."
How can you tell if the lunch is untouched, unless the kid got to keep it?
I'm not sure if this was a substitution, as opposed to a supplement. The girl, a picky eater, may simply have chosen not to eat the bag lunch after the nutrition officer gave her the nuggets. May have inadvertently scared her off the bag lunch.
The mother's explanation:
""She came home *with her whole sandwich* I had packed [emphasis added], because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her," her mother said. "You're telling a 4-year-old. 'oh. you're lunch isn't right,' and she's thinking there's something wrong with her food.""
So they didn't take away her lunch but said something about it being unhealthy, so naturally this young girl was scared off from eating it - so her net lunch experience was less nutritious than if they'd just let her alone. And for this "service," the mother gets billed.
Anyway, I question Jacob Sullum's claim that they wanted the lunch "replaced." The story doesn't say this.
What if the family were vegetarian on religious grounds? Do they have a substitute for meat?
Country ham, of course!
Since the girl only ate 3 chicken nuggets, I think they're okay with kids going hungry. They just can't eat anything the child food commissars object to.
As I mentioned below, it seems they let her keep her lunch, she just didn't eat it.
Actually mentioned above.
The girl was 4, and a strange adult came into her class and told her not to eat the food her mom gave her. Admittedly, letting the girl keep her lunch was better than tossing it, but the end result was the girl went hungry. And that was apparently better for the commissar than letting her eat her lunch.
"told her not to eat the food her mom gave her"
Does anyone have any idea about the precarious relationships mothers and daughters have? The few mothers and daughters relationships I am aware of, if this happened there would be years of trying to overcome the "day mom sent me to school with a BAD lunch" to get over.
Boys fuck shit up.
Girls are fucked up.
Thanks, Louis
I suppose that if they didn't let her eat it, they might have still sent it back not being allowed to dispose of it.
Sent it back with her after school to show mom that it was unsatisfactory. Do you guys not remember what school was like?
I was in a private after school daycare when I was like eight years old, an all-too-short lifetime ago. Sometimes when I would question their bullshit, they would pull out a fucking binder and flip to a rule, and I would get an answer like "DCFS said so". They had rules like how long you could wash your hands, a maximum time actually specified. Washing hands over fifteen seconds was too long. School made me who I am today.
For what its worth, the food from home thing was in the binder.
I wonder where the max handwashing time came from. Longer would be goofing off? Or unhealthful? Or did they just figure they should have a rule about everything, and since minimum handwashing times weren't widely discussed back then, they should impose a maximum by default?
If the lunch is dangerous to everyone's health, it should never be tossed in the normal trash. My god, what if it leaks its evil and pollutes the ground water. It must be handled by a hazmat team, or blown up by the guys who blow up lost book bags in case they are bombs.
I know Raeford. Raeford don't take that, well, let's say stuff!
This is for Epi and a few others:
Banjos and I have recently joined our DVD collections and we are in the process of trying to watch every movie by tying them together with an actor or director from film to film.
(ex: we got to "Star Wars: Ep3" which had Frank Oz in it. He was also in "Trading Places," which had Denholm Elliott in it. He was in "Raiders of The Lost Ark," as was Paul Freeman, who was also in "Hot Fuzz," etc, etc, etc.)
We've got right at 600 films in our library and we're wondering how many of them we can tie together without using a name twice in less than a 10 film span...or at all according to Banjos.
If there's a soul out there that thinks he/she can do it, let me know and I'll mail you our movie list. But beware, there are some dreadful fucking films on it.
sloop, I think you missed the discussion earlier today re: should Irsay keep Manning or not. I said he has to let the guy go...Your thoughts?
Manning needs to go. Luck is too big a deal to pass on. If he fails, it will be on him. If he succeeds as a #2 pick, I wouldn't want to be the guy who passed on him.
See, I'm not sure Manning is such a sure bet. It's very hard to say a great college QB will translate to a great pro one. But I think Irsay still has to let Manning go because Manning is worth several players and that team needs to rebuild, and Manning could never play decently again...
**ding-ding**
The Herschel Walker trade for whoever he deald Manning to. The Colts could be completely rebuilt in 2 years, right as Luck is preparing to blossom in the NFL.
Oh, and Fuck Tom Brady. And Fuck Michigan. O-H...
I was a Viking fan when that trade was made, it ruined the Vikings and built the Cowboys into a multiple SuperBowl winning team.
Worst.Trade.Ever.
That's friggin insane.
If Luck isn't successful right away and Peyton goes to Washington and wins a championship (and this scenario is significantly possible), they look like absolute morons letting him go over a roster bonus. There's absolutely no reason they can't draft Luck AND keep Manning for a few more years. Other than Irsay's greed.
I can't imagine diva Peyton going anyplace the conditions aren't perfect (ie. he'd want to play in a dome, or maybe Miami); I also can't imagine him winning with Snyderbrenner trying to build a team around him.
$28 million is a lot of scratch, greedy Irsay or not. Were I the Colts GM, I'd have talked to Manning and tried to get him to restructure his contract to something a little more sane, and easier to trade in Weeks 9-10. But keeping Manning and Luck would require serious $$$ and probably require cutting ties with some of the about-to-be-FAs they have. Diehl comes to mind; I'm sure there are others. You might have to let Wayne go, and either Mathis or Freeney (I forget which one's contract is coming up).
As it is, they will draft Luck, and he will get killed behind that line unless he is the 2nd coming of Dan Marino. Peyton camouflaged a lot of ills on the Indy offense.
As to where he will go, I still think Denver is a possibility, despite Red Rocks' very valid points he raised in the other thread. What does everybody think about him going to Dallas? Can't you see Jerruh getting tired of Romo and his golf game and seeing if Manning has anything in the tank?
I'll say it again: Diva Peyton is only going someplace with a dome. (Or maybe Miami, since it generally has good weather.)
If he fails, it will be on him.
True. Nobody criticizes the Saints for drafting Reggie Bush at #2 even though he was the bust of the century.
I'm not sure at what point in your sentence the sarcasm lies, but The Wedgie bounced back well enough with the Dolphins to screw me in a couple of fantasy games this season.
No sarcasm; Bush was the Andrew Luck of 2006. For the past few years he's a change-of-pace back who puts up some decent fantasy numbers once in a while.
What needed to happen in '06 was for the Texans to trade the #1 to the Jets. The Jets had just lost Curtis Martin to retirement and were desperate for a quality RB. Bush would've loved going from one spotlight to the next. They also had the #4 and a mid-20s 1st rounder. Do the swap, eat the difference from Jimmie Johnson's chart and draft Brick Ferguson and Nick Mangold or Greg Jennings. Let someone else get Mario Williams. Everybody wins.
But Bush wasn't the consensus, cannot miss, #1 in 2006. VY (and his 6 Wonderlic) was in this draft too. I remember knowledgeable people wondering if he had the build to survive 360 carries in the NFL, or why you'd waste the #1 on this generation's version of Eric Metcalf.
And the Texans were right to draft Mario Williams #1. (Don't get me started on the idiot mattress salesman taking out a full-page ad begging Houston to draft Young.)
With their hideous line, I think they should have turned the first pick into two Pro Bowl, if not All-Pro O-linemen, rather than draft Mario. If they were unable to move the pick (and I'm not sure they tried all that hard to move it.), then yeah, you draft Mario over Bush or VY. If VY had two brain cells and heart, you draft him, but I was unconvinced that VY had the skill set to thrive in the NFL. Then again, I thought that drafting Cam Newton 1st was idiotic, so what do I know? I just hate giving old-tyme #1 pick $$$ to a pass rusher who didn't look like the second coming of LT.
But I really want somebody to take up this challenge. We're about 3% of the way in and having fun with it. (Going from "Shaun of The Dead" to "Underworld" to "Das Boot" to "Beerfest" to "Young Frankenstein" in a row was pretty fun.
That seems like a very strange way to organize. My wife just puts them alphabetically.
You want to keep the chick crap separate. I suggest alphabetical action/thriller, comedy, series, kids (if applicable) sections, and a burning barrel for "other".
Try watching these movies in the same 24-hour period:
Dr. Strangelove
Where the Buffalo Roam AND Fear and Loathing AND The Rum Diary
Hell, I didn't NEED drugs that day.
He's gone. $28 million can buy Andrew Luck, as well as upgrades at other positions.
Luck is getting waaaaaaaaay more than $28M in guaranteed money. Matthew Stafford got $41.7M guaranteed three drafts ago.
Check the new CBA. Rookies are getting screwed compared to the contracts from 3 years ago. They actually dialed back the pay scales. If Stafford got $41.7M guaranteed, Luck will probably get around $30M. Obviously you pay your #1 pick what you have to, but that $28M in pocket is a nice position for Irsay. He can use that money for free-agent upgrades.
Oops, forgot the CBA.
What the? How did you post after and yet above your first reply?
The squirrels have obtained access to the 5th dimension...
Everything that is not forbidden is mcmandatory.
McDonald
You miserable piker....watch and weep!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-oPQeQ3toI
How do they get away with mandating meat? No vegetarians in that school? Catholic who don't eat meat on Friday?
Not only that, but meat & milk.
If it was a matter of making up for a perceived deficiency, what was with the chicken nuggets? Is turkey an inferior form of poultry? Or is it a matter of, you've got to get the string beans, and you can't have string beans without chicken nuggets?
This is what really gets me. This thread has over 100 posts already and the one directly below it on military spending has only 42. This one is a report by a hardly disinterested blog based on a single anonymous source who is supposed to be an upset mother about a kid who, in a voluntary program, was stupidly told to eat a cafeteria Mcnugget meal rather than her home packed lunch. The other is about how our government spends hundreds of billions of our dollars on a military that is so bloated that it is more than the other 14 highest spenders COMBINED, a military that we then use to kill thousands of people around the world a year.
And THIS story is the one that gets all the outrage?
WTF?
Psychology. The particular vs. the statistical.
Look dummy, the reason why is that you are half the comments in this post alone.
Sometimes people don't like debating dishonest projecting adversaries, sometimes they do.
Oh the irony of Mingey whining about not enough comments on a H&R post.
It is to laugh.
Think globally, act locally.
No argument from me. This story pisses so many off because this is the kind of thing (assuming the story checks out) we are assured by TEAM BLUE can never happen and yet seems to happen with depressing regularity (TSA checking babys diaper for explosive or pulling out a 90 year old womans catheter or..or...or)!
I think your missing an important issue, MNG. Events like this have happened before. There many be millions of incidents of individual mother being compelled to pay for school lunches rather than let their children take home-packed meals. Remember the outrage when the Chicago school district tried to ban packing your own lunch?
Is it less outrageous when one government spends $1 million on a wasteful program, than when school districts all over the country force parents to pay for millions of school lunches?
Moreover, is there any difference in the level of corruption involved?
In both cases, what's going on behind the scene is government contractors using their political connections to route business to themselves. In one cases, it's a defense contractor bidding on military hardware, in the other it's the SEIU bidding for cafeteria service jobs.
What guy chose this thread to say he wanted to get flamed two hundred times?
*THIS GUY*
We can't stop the military-industrial complex, MNG.
What, you don't think this story hasn't been replicated around this entire nation, not even once? Should we put up with shit like this, on the local level?
Well, hells! I'll just trot up to the Pentagon and yell at the first general I meet. Would that make you happy?
The problem is that the teacher's unions are allied with the public service unions that run the school cafeteria. More school lunches purchased means more jobs for cafeteria workers, more money for the contractors who supply the cafeteria and so forth.
We shouldn't overlook these incidents just because they are a million cases of a $1.25 instead of one case of 1.25 million.
Hazel, I was just trying to have fun with this story and you have to go and point out the real boogeyman. Sometimes a brothers just gotta get his yayas out.
Not only allied, but I think in some cases part of the same union.
My mom was a teachers' aide, a term I think most people would understand. The union always seemed to want to use the term "paraprofessional", which I thought was deliberate to try to obscure from regular people what various school employees did. (Obviously, I never got an answer to my question of what the difference was between a paraprofessional and a para-amateur.)
Actually, it was worse; the union also liked to use the term ESP (for "education support personnel", I think); the government sector unions being almost as bad as the American Medical Association in using acronyms to describe even things where people would know the full name (see that commerical renaming low testosterone "low T").
The janitors and such were called SRPs, for "school-related personnel" (I think).
Some of you are trying to reason with MNG. This is not possible.
Unless it has to do with football, apparently.
You stupid fucks think your kids are "your" kids! This is soooo fuckin' rich!!!
Asinine, idiotic, and illegal. They actually stole the child's lunch and substituted a sub-standard lunch which they then charged her for. Charge the school officials with petty theft,child abuse, and civil rights violation. Stop these fools NOW before they do real damage.
Well, looky here:
ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/pdf_forms/meal_patterns.pdf
What now, MNG? Tony? Chef? Mr. Mackey? The 1985 Denver Broncos?
Aww look at that, if you're imprisoned in the state's assisted living system, you get to be tortured along with the children.
Indeed. The long, slow decline of America continues apace.
Interestingly, the taxpayer is actually footing the bill for this disgusting move, further, I'll bet they wouldn't pull this on a kiddo in high school. Leave our children alone. Go away!
Interestingly, the taxpayer is actually footing the bill for this disgusting move, further, I'll bet they wouldn't pull this on a kiddo in high school. Leave our children alone. Go away!
lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables
A pickled sausage, Lance ToastChee crackers,bag of vinegar and salt potato chips, and a box of Raisonettes. I ate this very lunch 2 weeks ago. I also had a string cheese stick but the Raisonettes should cover both the milk and fruit categories.
Happy valentine's day! Hope all of the single men and women can be in pairs. Happiness. Do you want to find a suitable shoes for you? I strongly recommend nike free shoes
Why ? Get the best of both worlds when you tackle your next run, day or night. The unique design and cool of dazzle colour collocation. We also supply nike free 5.0,
OT, because I am surprised by the quoted material and want to share: After hourlong standoff, armed Liberty County man surrenders
Multiple felon and member of some Texas militia group [Boney], decides to throw lead at his wife in a domestic dispute. The cops naturally arrive. Here's where it gets surprisingly wonderful:
Nothing else happened, and I commend the Liberty County SWAT team for their restraint.
Unlike the drug raids, where they know for sure there are other people in the house, thus feel free to open fire.
and I commend the Liberty County SWAT team for their conservation of ammo
Well done by that SWAT Team. But what do they want, a fucking cookie?
Oh, I don't think they were patting themselves on the back for their restraint. (And they shouldn't, as you correctly point out.) From my Balko-conditioning, I was just surprised to read about it, in a situation where I wouldn't have had much of a problem if they had shot Boney.
Congratulations on the wedding. I am delighted for both of you and wish you both many years of happiness together.
You know what's bad? Being able to identify fast food based on photos. Those are Wendy's "Spicy Chicken Nuggets" and I ate them today and they are awful. The ranch dip was fucking terrible too. Where is Obama to save me from this?????
Thank you
Your blog is very nice and informative.
I'm going to have a threesome with the declaration of independence.
here are some videos with her
This is a joke, right?
Wow.
This thread demonstrates a pretty breathtakingly blatant tossing of critical thinking skills combined with massive confirmation bias in getting on one's two-minute hate.
Would anyone seriously like to posit as a general rule that stories deriving from a single advocacy group's blog and relying totally on a single anonymous source (and an interested party at that) should be taken as true? Of course not. But everyone makes exceptions here because they want to believe it, it confirms their bias about government=bad and overbearing.
It's pretty breathtaking. Colonel Angus frankly admits "I don't care if this is true or not." before getting his rage on about it...RC Dean first says flatly that the comments of the official quoted "confirms the underlying story," but when pointed out that it is likely confirming nothing but a hypothetical he immediately admits "I see absolutely no reason to doubt the report"! Mr. FIFY says "pick a side already."
Again, if anyone wants to argue that we should in general credit stories that derive solely from the single blog of an advocacy group based on the word of a single anonymous source, let them do so.
Because that would be worth bookmarking for future debates based on wacky liberal advocacy blogs stories.
Oh, is it different when the story confirms your biases? Well, there is a name for that...
FTA: But Jani Kozlowski, the division's fiscal and statutory policy manager, tells Carolina Journal the rejected lunch?which consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips, and apple juice?did in fact meet USDA guidelines, which call for one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables.
I think you're nitpicking here, MiNGe. It sure reads like the director-lady was addressing this specific mean, not if a mean like this hypothetically net the guidelines. Her words were "the rejected lunch." If that's not identifying a real lunch, then she sure chose her words poorly.
And while you're assuming one thing and many on here are assuming another based on the info we're all given, it sure looks like a legit claim, thus all the justified (IMO) outrage over a state intrusion into an area where they should have no discretion.
mean=meal. net=met.
Where's my goddamn coffee?
Just to repost:
Could be hypothetical, I guess. Sure doesn't come off that way.
It helps, of course, that the state regulations quoted in the article require exactly what is claimed to have happened.
So, we have regs that require X, a report that X was in fact done, and a state spokesman confirming what the regs require, and commenting on whether they were appropriately applied.
I see absolutely no reason to doubt the report, myself.
choking on smug...
You're capable of grasping the inane, MNG... we've seen you do it.
Things like this "possible" story, DO happen in America. (I think the story is true, but I'll give it just one crumb of a possibility tht it didn't, just to make you happy).
Doesn't the concept of it, though, worry you? That's why I suggested you pick a side.; little things like telling parents what they MAY/MAY NOT put in home-packed lunches *should* bother you. But you act like it's no big deal.
I wrote about this yesterday morning on my blog. I wonder if Perdue will comment on this since she is the poster girl for the school lobby here in NC.
Totally think this was a stupid move by the school officials, but to clarify, I think the headline is wrong. The lunch was "supplemented" with nuggets, not replaced by. A little detail, but a fact none the less.
If you read the entire article, you'll find that the government agent and the preschool failed to follow or understand the government policy. This is a failure of application of the law, not the law. It is in the public's interest to license and regulate childcare facilities. It is in the public's interest to make sure that children left in the care of others for purposes of education or welfare during parent work hours are fed a proper meal. The law and regulation in play requires a childcare facility or school to review what children are being fed, including by their parents, and if it is not adequate nutrition, to provide the child any nutritional items the parent failed to provide. That's reasonable. What was unreasonable was the application of the law by individuals and the school. What's needed is training and education of government workers enforcing the rule and of school administrators providing the lunches. Not chicken littleisms and tinfoil hat paranoia about how the Gummint Is Coming To Take Me Away.
Look, asshole. Whatever the public's interest in ensuring that kids receive proper nutrition, it doesn't extend so far as to extinguish ordinary parental perogatives absent demonstrated harm, or a clear risk thereof, to the child.
If we were merely talking about high-level monitoring of these kids' nutrition, to prevent them from growing malnourished, that would be one thing. But that's not the situation; here, we have some sort of Food Commissar poking his snout into kids' lunchpails on a meal-by-meal basis, to ensure that the items therein are in compliance with some half-assed diktat from officialdom.
Training and education of government workers doesn't fix that. Tarring and feathering of fuckstains who think it's a good idea might.
No you don't.
You have an adult answering a querulous child that she can go het herself a free carton of milk.
That's it. End of story.
What else we have is a bunch of gullible, underinformed conspiracy theorists, like yourself, extrapolating a situation that didn't exist. Yo do have an excuse of sorts, the article here is entirely innacurate. However, sustaining your hysteria based on a single article puts you into the 'uneducated, underinformed, uncritical' category.
Before wearing your heart on your sleeve in such a manner in future, perhaps try and corroborate the information - preferably from two sources that rarely agree with each other, that way you can ascertain the spectrum of the facts, not just one side.
You will look much less like a hysterical fool short on Fauxygen.
If you read this article you end up with a complete fabrication of events.
The little girl was offered free milk, because she left hers at home.
That's the crime the school committed.
All within the state...nothing outside the state...nothing against the state.
... let's see how long it takes this esteemed publication to update this is, and point out how hilariously bogus it is.
There's a larger point here about how libertarians have to jump on such ridiculous stories to score points against their enemies, but, in the interest of kindness, I'll simply say that, with a few notable exceptions, libertarianism is a discipline chockful of intelligent people arguing in good faith. 🙂
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/.....-troversy/
I do hope some really good lawyer defends the child and her family and there is a judge with a brain handling the court who will make an example of that inspector, the school board and anyone else involved in this type of "force". People need to be fired on this one. What next? They don't like the color or style of shoes a child wears so they make another stupid move? Bunch of BS. Talk about abuse of power.
Deborah, you do know that the case the 'inspector' (that wasn't), the school would be answering in court would be the crime of offering a free carton of milk to a pre-schooler?
Now don't you feel the least bit silly for your hysteria? Don't you think that maybe next time you will do a little more research before jumping so publicly on a bandwagon and coming off as just a little stupid?
Probably not...
The government needs to start realizing that we are the ones who push our kids out and create them, Not Them!!!!! Its time for us parents to stand up and tell them we know whats best for our children ,Not Them! Rather have my kids eat a banana, a sandwhich or something, then smashed chicken guts anyday, Government, Keep your nose out of it, You dont know whats always best!!!
And you don't know what you're talking about, do you?
You were so quick to jump on to this story and use it as a platform for your rhetoric, but you don't have ANY of the facts, thanks to reason.com.
Perhaps this will convince you to look skeptically at any of the other 'journalism' this outlet provides.
It is hysterical nonsense, nothing more.
It's time for a revoluton. DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT!
It's time for a revoluton. DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT!
Are you going to publish a retraction of this story, given the subsequent facts? Do you have even the least bot of journalistic integrity?
Your story is nearly 100% inaccurate. What happened? A little girl was offered free milk. The sky is now falling.
The comments from your other readers reflect what happens when you get your news from one or from one type, of source.
Hysteria, misinformation, miseducation. You should be ashamed.
In any normal country, a total lack of journalistic integrity would be punished, in our country, it gets labelled 'Fair and Balanced'
Please everyone click the link to the original article then read their corrections. (hint the third word in the first paragraph is the link to the article about what actually happened)