retail news in context, analysis with attitude

MNB reported the other day that the US Senate passed via unanimous consent the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, described as “a bill that provides an additional $4.5 billion over 10 years to federal child nutrition programs including school lunch. If signed into law, it will be the first time that the federal government has increased funding for the programs in 30 years ... The bill allocates $1.2 billion to increase the number of children receiving food, an effort to meet President Obama's pledge to end childhood hunger by 2015. The remaining $3.2 billion would be used to improve the quality of school meals. This includes an extra 6 cents per meal per student for schools that meet new, stricter nutrition standards and funding for schools to establish school gardens and to source local foods. The bill also would mandate that the Department of Agriculture develop nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools, not just what is served in the lunch line.”

One MNB user wrote:

Once again the Obama Administration (ne Michele O.) is expanding the Nanny State once more.   Do the liberal left really think that banning certain food and drink from the school cafeteria will stop kids from eating what they want.  Is the next step to search the kids for contraband candy bars and soft drinks in their book bags?   Is that what the 5,000 folks that are being hired will be doing?   Michele is not going to stop at the school lunch room.   They are going to also target the small farmer who depends on small town markets to sell his products.   No more church bake sales and farmer markets at the town square.   Wake up America, the liberal left is going to never stop the idiotic "food police"mentality.   Only the intellectual pointy head liberals know what is best for this country.   The way we are headed, it will be like it was in the depression that folks will be glad to eat anything that they can get their hands on.   Where will the food police be then?   Perhaps they will have starved by then.

Another MNB user wrote:

Once again you have missed the big picture. Nobody wants obese or unhealthy children, but how many times must the American public tell everybody in government, STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS!!!!!!! What I choose to feed my children is my business and should not be regulated by ANYBODY!!!!!!!!! I am thankful I live in a small town in a small state that I can still bring treats to class for my child’s birthday. I brought Ice Cream cupcakes the other day. I guess I should be arrested by the Obama patrol for making kids fat. Where is it going to end?????? They are just going to keep pushing legislation until we become a socialist country controlled by the government. Anybody that does not see that is either blind or chooses to ignore the infringement on peoples rights. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!

While I understand your concerns, I simply don’t see this the same way. (Which means you probably think I’m an intellectual pointy-headed liberal. Which is okay. I figure that if I’ve managed to convince people that I’m an intellectual - and nothing could be further from the truth - then I’ll have to live with the other labels.)

Best I can tell, the bill isn’t saying what you feed your kids. It is, however, saying that schools need to serve lunches and snacks that need to meet certain nutritional standards. That doesn’t strike me as nannyism. I think it is making a proper investment in our children.

Let me repeat what I wrote when the bill passed:

“I’m sure there are places where the child nutrition legislation overreaches. There almost always are. And I’m sure there are places in the bill that have been crafted for political expediency - by members of both parties - rather than children’s best interests.

“But as a taxpayer, I think that public schools need to be held to a higher standard in all areas - and that includes in the cafeteria. If we want our kids to be the smartest, best-educated children on the planet, which will in turn make them the most innovative and competitive, then that ought to include feeding them and educating them about the importance of proper nutrition. That doesn’t strike me as a cost. It sounds more like a good investment. And for either side to use kids - and their best interests - for political advantage in this area would be a shame. “

I actually liked the way that MNB user Kevin McCaffery responded to this story:

I think Dean Vernon Wormer of Animal House said it best:
“Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

I wrote last week that I was almost disappointed that TSA security procedures were not all they’d be cracked up to be:

“I went into the weekend thinking that there was at least a 50-50 chance that I was either going to be felt up or have naked pictures taken of me, and I haven’t had a weekend like that since college.”

Which led one MNB user to write:

I got a big LOL out of that one.  I can relate. 
I’m flying to Boston at the end of this month.  Unlike you, though, I’m hoping not to be groped by a stranger (I like to at least have a drink or dinner first and these days you’re lucky if you get peanuts on the plane).  If they do take naked pictures of me, what they see serves them right.  Bo Derek I’m not.  This whole TSA thing is a joke anyway.   False sense of security.  We all still need to be observant, because the TSA is not what it’s crapped up to be.

“Crapped up to be.” What a great phrase.
KC's View: