I'm not sure which is more disturbing to me, now resorting to searching children's sack lunches by the government or instilling birth control in the water supply? Saw these 2 articles and just couldn't help myself. If these are indeed true, what is this country coming to? I don't think they'd ever introduce birth control into the water because of ethical reasons, but then again, fluoride has been shown in countless studies to be harmful when ingested into the body and they still put that into water; however, many townships and towns are not voting to pull the fluoride out of their water. Here are the articles: Is This China? Additional articles on kid's lunches: Searching Kid's Lunches State Article Editor Wants Birth Control in Water Birth Control in Water Supply Taking the parenting away from the parents to me, is just wrong, when the parents aren't doing anything wrong such as abuse or neglect. It shouldn't be up to the state to determine what kids should eat and then go on to enforce that in person. If that's how they want to raise THEIR kids, then that's fine, but leave parenting to the individual parents. The second article isn't actuality or fact, but one person's thoughts about what to do with wombs being "poverty factories." His words, not mine. While, the idea is highly disturbing, I should also point out that it's disturbing that there are actually people out there pondering something like this due to his disdain for welfare programs. You take a look and see what you all think.
That's insanity. I think the child's lunch was reasonable. The mother packed "a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips." After the intervention, she ended up eating chicken nuggets provided by the school for lunch. So much worse. I do believe a teacher should talk to parents in certain cases. Say, if the child is just bringing junk everyday for lunch. But, this is way out of line.
So many aspects to what is wrong about this. Gestapo like food inspection, checking on your parenting skills. State enforced nutritional standards.The fact that nutritious food provided by the parent was replaced by the crap being served by the state. At the core of the matter, I suspect it comes down to money, like it always does. They've basically created a way to force people to buy their product, a bit like Obama's concept of state run healthcare. You think private schools are searching students lunches to determine nutritional value? Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the article of all, is the lack of outrage. This is the type of thing that, had it happened even 20 years ago parents wouldn't be complaining. They wouldn't be suing the school. They would be filing charges with the authorities. My wife posted this article on her facebook page when it broke, and practically none of her 100% liberal friend base would even comment on it. Not surprisingly, the same pack of liberals went crazy when SOPA fell on hard times.
I would suspect many have good intentions, however misguided. But, I wouldn't disregard your comment about money. From the article, "The nutrition standards for pre-K lunch require milk, two servings of fruit or vegetable, bread or grains and a meat or meat alternative." For one thing, even consider the requirement that every child drink milk for lunch. Milk is a good source of calcium. However, it's not the only source. You can get calcium, even in certain non-dairy foods. So, why would they specifically require them to drink milk? This is an article I read a long time ago, but found again, about conflicts of interest.
That article on milk sort of confirms what's happening with all of the USDA agents shutting down people who have raw milk, straight from the cows, without it being homogenized and bought through USDA "approved" sources. They do this in the guise of once again, "protecting people" from diseases, but how many people have died from drinking faw milk over the centuries unless the cows were sick or the milk was old? If the cows are certified healthy and not eating a ton of gmo's and other pro-hormones, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that natural, unadulterated milk. Just another way to make sure the dairy industry keeps their profits HIGH.
For this very reason, I never stopped breastfeeding as a child. Its kept me abnormally healthy for decades.
When you say child, I hope you're meaning under 3. When I think of those people that breast feed their kids until they're like 5 or 6, I think of overprotective moms and needy kids down the line with serious issues (Mental and emotional). I've also been reading that kid's that eat finger foods when they have teeth, are healthier in many ways than those that eat mushed, Gerber style baby food.
I think you missed the part where I said I never stopped . Yet another reason never to move out of the basement.
I completely agree. With proper handling, and a quality diet for the cows, raw milk is perfectly safe. Actually, it's healthier. Pasteurization can kill some of the beneficial bacteria, vitamins, and enzymes. You can actually still find raw milk in certain areas. I have a dairy by my house that sells it. lol.
Hmm birth control in the water , now that would be great solution for those countries with overpopulation problems . Also thumbs up for Obamanation , boobs can always keep any man healthy .