100% All-Natural Composition
No Artificial Intelligence!
Showing posts with label department of agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label department of agriculture. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Ma Chalmers lives, and she's destroying school lunch

Please tell me that isn't a soybean that Michelle Obama is extolling the virtues of in that photo.

The current First Lady has somehow become the nation's Food Czar, with a capacity of recommending, implementing and apparently enforcing her own policies on the country. No other First Lady has enjoyed such power. Not even the much-beloved Nancy Reagan, who channeled the massive respect given her toward no more a gesture than encouraging America's children to steer clear of drug abuse, was granted such authority to wield.

Michelle Obama, however, is hellbent on imposing her own whacked nutritional vision upon the children of those who "just said no".

Michelle Obama has directed the United States Department of Agriculture to mandate school lunches that can best be described as "skimpy" and "lacking". Not to mention downright unpalatable. The government is determined to limit elementary kids to 650 calories and high schoolers to 850 calories.

Hasn't Michelle ever paid attention to her own children? I mean, elementary kids are supposed to run around and be energetic and that burns up calories. To say nothing of high school students engaged in sports like football and basketball. I was on our high school's swim team and I ate a lot to have fuel for practice and meets: I don't think I could have gotten fat if if I tried during a season.

The students are starving, they know it and they also know who's responsible for it. Some enterprising youngsters have even begun operating black markets for such federally-verboten items as chocolate syrup and potato chips. The kids just don't want to be commanded by the government about what they can and cannot eat when their parents are supposed to be in charge of their nutritional needs. One of the obvious consequences? Vast amounts of food getting wasted and thrown away.

And yet in spite of it, the government is blaming the children for apparently lacking enough wisdom to enjoy federal oversight of their lives! From Kyle Olson's article at TownHall.com...

Nancy Carvalho, director of food services for New Bedford Public Schools, was quoted as saying that hummus and black bean salads have been tough sells in elementary cafeterias. That means even smaller children are going through the day fighting hunger pains, which can never be considered a good thing.

One government official tried to put the blame on the students.

"One thing I think we need to keep in mind as kids say they're still hungry is that many children aren't used to eating fruits and vegetables at home, much less at school. So it's a change in what they are eating. If they are still hungry, it's that they are not eating all the food that's being offered," USDA Deputy Undersecretary Janey Thornton was quoted as saying.

I know of no other way to put it than this: Michelle Obama has become Emma "Ma" Chalmers.

If you've never read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Ma Chalmers (mother of Kip Chalmers: he who instigated the chain of events that led to the horrific Winston Tunnel disaster) comes in fairly late in the novel. With the national economy imploding under the weight of looters and moochers and as the transportation infrastructure is collapsing, Ma Chalmers comes on the scene with her national mandate for soybeans...

But thirty million dollars of subsidy money from Washington had been plowed into Project Soybean -- an enormous acreage in Louisiana, where a harvest of soybeans was ripening, as advocated and organized by Emma Chalmers, for the purpose of reconditioning the dietary habits of the nation. Emma Chalmers, better known as Kip's Ma, was an old sociologist who had hung about Washington for years, as other women of her age and type hang about barrooms. For some reason which nobody could define, the death of her son in the tunnel catastrophe had given her in Washington an aura of martyrdom, heightened by her recent conversion to Buddhism. "The soybean is a much more sturdy, nutritious and economical plant than all the extravagant foods which our wasteful, self-indulgent diet has conditioned us to expect," Kip's Ma had said over the radio; her voice always sounded as if it were falling in drops, not of water, but of mayonnaise. "Soybeans make an excellent substitute for bread, meat, cereals and coffee--and if all of us were compelled to adopt soybeans as our staple diet, it would solve the national food crisis and make it possible to feed more people. The greatest food for the greatest number--that's my slogan. At a time of desperate public need, it's our duty to sacrifice our luxurious tastes and eat our way back to prosperity by adapting ourselves to the simple, wholesome foodstuff on which the peoples of the Orient have so nobly subsisted for centuries. There's a great deal that we could learn from the peoples of the Orient."

Ma Chalmers exploits her "friendships" and political pull to bring the bulk of the country's available railroad cars to her soybean collective in Louisiana, while at the same time a record harvest of corn and wheat - more than enough to feed the country - is bulging at the seams in Minnesota... and the farmers have no way of moving it.

It does not end well.

In Minnesota, farmers were setting fire to their own farms, they were demolishing grain elevators and the homes of county officials, they were fighting along the track of the railroad, some to tear it up, some to defend it with their lives--and, with no goal to reach save violence, they were dying in the streets of gutted towns and in the silent gullies of a roadless night.

Then there was only the acrid stench of grain rotting in half-smouldering piles -- a few columns of smoke rising from the plains, standing still in the air over blackened ruins -- and, in an office in Pennsylvania, Hank Rearden sitting at his desk, looking at a list of men who had gone bankrupt: they were the manufacturers of farm equipment, who could not be paid and would not be able to pay him.

As for the government-mandated soybeans...

The harvest of soybeans did not reach the markets of the country: it had been reaped prematurely, it was moldy and unfit for consumption.

"Unfit for consumption." That's a good a description as any for darn near everything coming from our "brilliant" leaders in Washington D.C.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Government food police halt preschooler's lunch, forces chicken nuggets

How in Heaven's name did we make it this far without the Food Police?

I mean, I remember going to school every day with a lunchbox packed with a sandwich, a small bag of potato chips, a thermos of lemonade and sometimes a brownie or slice of cake. Around the holidays Mom would also usually throw in a bag of Chex snack mix (we've always called it "trash" because "there's all kinds of good junk in it!). So did millions of other children around the country. And we certainly didn't seem to suffer from malnutrition, rickets or plague.

In 2012 however, those individually-prepared meals packed with love would almost certainly have had our parents taken away in handcuffs by Department of Social Services. That seems to be the general direction we're headed according to this story from Carolina Journal Online, which reports on government run amok in the schools of the little burg of Raeford in the eastern part of this state...

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”
State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead

RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school 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 person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the 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 in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.

The girl's grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

"What got me so mad is, number one, don't tell my kid I'm not packing her lunch box properly," the girl's mother told CJ. "I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn't really care for vegetables."

(snip)

I think every parent in that school should pack the same identical sub-nutritious menu in their children's lunchboxes for a solid week, and make these government ninny-nannies' heads collectively explode from frustration.

John Hayward at Human Events has some more thoughts about this ridiculous situation.

Having a designated person inspecting each and every lunch brought from home? Seriously?

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Grinch Obama's heart grows three sizes in a hurry as "Christmas Tree Tax" is called off

Late last night this blog joined numerous other outlets in reporting that the Obama Administration was set to impose a 15-cent tax on all freshly cut Christmas trees. You can read that initial post for more information, including some stuff I came across during a bit o' investigatin' (I'm still curious as to who the heck the people behind "Christmas Tree Promotion Now" are...)

Looks like Obama and gang got the message: the tax is being put on hold. But not without some snide commentary from the White House...

White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told ABC News that despite some media coverage, “I can tell you unequivocally that the Obama Administration is not taxing Christmas trees. What’s being talked about here is an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself to fund a promotional campaign, similar to how the dairy producers have created the ‘Got Milk?’ campaign.”

Nonetheless, the criticisms have apparently had an impact as the program is now being delayed.

I did not know until a comment left on my post last night that the "Got Milk?" campaign is funded with money taken from farmers without their consent by the Department of Agriculture. This "Christmas Tree Tax" would have done much the same. And in the case of the dairy farmers we're talking thousands of dollars extracted from their budgets each year. No doubt that the larger commercial milk producers can easily pay that. But as someone who grew up on a small family-run dairy farm and knows people who still operate small farms well... let's just say that five or six thousand dollars a year ain't chicken feed.

More and more I'm inclined to believe that this scheme to tax Christmas trees came in part - however large or small - from larger tree growers. Can't outright prove that mind ya, but even so: it would be good to know who the people are behind the Christmas Tree Promotion Now outfit.

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

You're a mean one Mister Obama! President to impose "Christmas Tree Tax"

This is not satire and it's not from The Onion. I already checked and it's true...

President Barack Obama's administration is trying to impose a 15-cent "Christmas Tree tax" on all freshly-cut trees intended for Yuletide celebration. Fifteen cents on the sale of every tree to... get this now... "enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States."

Okay, two things that already stick out in this blogger's mind: that this is a tax without any representation or due process, regardless of what the administration is arguing. Indeed, within the text of the "order" issued by the Department of Agriculture it is found that "...the assessment provided for in this type of program is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government. These producer and importers funds raised by producers and importers are for the benefit of producers and importers."

What. The. Hell?!? Ummmm this is an attempt to use the force of the federal government to extract from us money against our consent, and they have the audacity to say that this is not a "tax" because it's doesn't "yield revenue for the Federal government"?!

If it's not for the Federal government then what is this money being taken from us for?!?

And then I have to make note of how I'm hard-pressed to see how this isn't acting in respect toward an establishment of religion. True, there are many Christians who do not celebrate the holiday of Christmas, and that is fine. However, I can't find in the text of the order or anywhere else in the Federal Register that there's going to be a parallel tax imposed on Kwanzaa Trees.

Here's the official text of the legislation from the Federal Register. Feel free to peruse it for yourself. Feel even more free to be honked-off at what must be the most ridiculous act of big government in recent memory...

...but I've no doubt that even worse is being thought of as I write this.

EDIT 11:33 p.m. EST: Someone left a comment earlier about how this tax was coming at the urging of the Christmas tree industry. So that led me to performing some research and investigation...

The Department of Agriculture is saying that this request came from something calling itself the "Christmas Tree Checkoff Study". Until tonight this cryptic group barely appeared anywhere, except for the proposal and order in the Federal Register and this website at checkoffstudy.blogspot.com. I went to that errr, "industry site". All I found was that there are ten people said to be from the Christmas tree industry who met with Department of Agriculture to push for this tax. However I can't find out anything about who exactly they are.

Well, further along at checkoffstudy.blogspot.com it is found that Christmas Tree Checkoff Study is allegedly acting at the behest of an outfit called Christmas Tree Promotion Now. Christmas Tree Promotion Now has a slightly more proper website at christmastreepromotion.com... but there again, there can be found NO information at all about who exactly constitutes this "industry-wide group of producers and importers".

In the past hour or so I've contacted two friends who each grow Christmas trees for commercial sale, and they didn't know anything about this tax either until I told them about it. Nor had either of them ever heard of Christmas Tree Checkoff Study or Christmas Tree Promotion Now.

I don't think it's an invalid question at all: WHO is asking for this tax? Let's see some names!

And I'm especially curious about knowing that, in light of this statement on Christmas Tree Promotion Now's Frequently Asked Questions...

Why not a voluntary program?

Voluntary marketing efforts have had success in the Christmas tree industry; however the challenge has always been the ability to sustain funding. A program that provides fair, consistent funding for promoting farm grown Christmas trees is needed so that all producers and importers can benefit.

There will always be a small minority attempting to side step the system. Because this would be a Federal program, then those who are assessed are legally required to comply.

Ummmm... WHO EXACTLY GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS "FAIR"?!?

And that "there will always be a small minority attempting to side step the system" so there needs to be "a Federal program" to make those dissidents "legally required to comply"?!

That is government-enforced thuggery at its worst!

Again, I would like to know who exactly is pushing for this tax. As things stand at this moment, there are only two possibilities that come to mind: either it is the Obama Administration itself, or it is... well, let's just call it "crony capitalism".