The Lunches from Home - A Good Start
In November I wrote about congress' discussions about nutritionally (and politically) correct school menus. I made a number of implementation and enforcement suggestions. What I didn't know was that the Food Police were already at work.
The story broke two weeks ago when a North Carolina parent of a four-year-old reported that her child's lunch was taken away at pre-school and replaced with chicken nuggets, a fried food staple of McDonalds. Her child's lunch consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, some chips and juice. Apparently, that's inferior to greasy nuggets. Or, maybe it was a punishment. Plus, the parent was billed $1.25. That was later withdrawn. Then another parent reported a similar incidence at the same school.
Apparently this school or the state is very serious about food. And, it appears it is without the assistance of the federal government. Just think how much more effective the program could be. Perhaps Homeland Security can best handle the "Lunches From Home Problem". Think about thousands of new federal hires, rubber gloved, x-ray and scanner equipped, guarding school cafeterias against the "Fat Monster", ready to snatch away Lunches From Home that do not meet government commanded nutritional standards of the minute, or day, or week, or year, or whatever. We might even be able to cover the cost of the program by getting sponsorships from vegetable and fruit industry and whole grain companies.
In my prior discussion I suggested that 1) all such programs start with application to the federal government in general and to its employes specifically, 2) government employes be weighed and measured and evaluated for fatness, 3) all food expense accounts cover only specifically nutritious food, 4) food at the grocery stores and restaurants be strictly proscribed, 5) school lunch boxes be x-rayed, 6) neighbor inform on neighbor in the interest of a healthy individual, nation, and a less costly health care system.
These suggestion are fair. Fair and equal are the goals these days. What is good for one is good for all. All should sacrifice a bit for all. Those who are "good" (read thin) need to lead those who are "not" (read fat). Those who have excess (fat) should decrease in size to fit the perceived norm. The collective good trumps individual ambition. That opposition to "good" ideas is obstructionism and not for the collective good. That the U.S. Constitution is outdated, restrictive, and stands in the way of progressive ideas that are both good and true. That fairness and equality of status and result are, indeed, desirable and just goals. That government is the vehicle to achieve all of the above.
These are all reminders that if we are to achieve these goals, which are, as we stated, good and true, it is inconsequential to sacrifice a bit of individual liberty. Individual liberty presumes responsibility and that, too, is easily and preferably turned over to government which has the resources to deliver and the power to enforce ideas whereas individual liberty, including the liberty not to do anything, can be annoying, divisive, and sometimes disruptive and often apathetic.
It is easier and proper, too, to substitute money for individual liberty. At whatever level: education, employment, raising a family, the security offered by money takes priority over any individual liberties one might want to express. Appropriately controlled thoughts and speech and writings are preferable to disruptive, provocative, or unapproved emissions.
Food, of course, is more essential than liberty. What better place to begin for a more stable and prosperous country?