Help support TMP


"The Food Police are at it again!!!" Topic


46 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ranting Plus Board

Back to the Food Plus Board


621 hits since 25 Oct 2011
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Mako1125 Oct 2011 9:56 p.m. PST

Last I heard, they were going to ban sodas, and other junk food in vending machines in Sacramento.

Not sure whether that passed or not.

Now the French are jumping on board too, supposedly for "health" reasons, but also I guess they are a bit put out that their children love ketchup (a not invented there condiment). So they will be limiting their ability to put it on all foods in school cafeterias, other than on french fries. Supposedly, the self-service condiment stations and salt will be removed too, in order to further micro-manage people's lives:

link

As if all those tasty, high-caloric French sauces aren't dangerous to the little tykes.

When will the lunacy end?

Personally, I'd like to severely restrict the amount of air/oxygen given to these busy-bodies.

Personal logo Klebert L Hall Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 4:27 a.m. PST

California and France have similarities. My response is to not live there.
-Kle.

Personal logo Only Warlock Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 5:13 a.m. PST

Amen Klebert.

Personal logo Streitax Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 5:20 a.m. PST

But think of the children! The new cry of the tyrant.

highlandcatfrog Inactive Member26 Oct 2011 5:23 a.m. PST

Spot-on Streitax!

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 5:55 a.m. PST

There is almost nothing more insidious and dangerous than a government official who "means well."

Sane Max26 Oct 2011 6:10 a.m. PST

Oh yes there is – a News Agency that makes these things into big Issoos.

So Kids in school can't eat ketchup except on their freedom-fries? Political Correctness gone MAAAAAD. They will be banning the wearing of veils next. And not just on men (stupid french – it was for personal reasons) but on actual women NOT alone in their hotel-rooms with a Dwarf Transvestite.

Seriously though – all they are doing is making the kids ask for ketchup, rather than helping themselves. Having sat aghast once as my middle daughter put Ketchup on her Venison Casserole I rather sympathise.

Pat

SECURITY MINISTER CRITTER Inactive Member26 Oct 2011 6:35 a.m. PST

Or the time a date put it on perfectly good porkchops.

Henrix26 Oct 2011 7:10 a.m. PST

Giving the kids good healthy food and encouraging them to try different tastes is a very good thing.
Teaching kids is what school is all about, and this is food the school serves them.


And "french fries" as you 'mericans call chips aren't french. (They're belgian.)
They're not a big thing there.

Saginaw26 Oct 2011 7:28 a.m. PST

I have no problem giving kids healthier options, but I do have an issue with "policing" choices. The government shouldn't have to tell me, nor anyone else, what I can or can't eat – it's my choice. But, as we all know, kids are going to ALWAYS go for the option that's either convenient or tastier, and sometimes, that's gonna involve a fair amount of fat, salt, or sugar. When we get older, hopefully, we "wise up" and choose what's nutritionally the best for us.

Like everything else in a kid's life, their influence on whatever choices they eventually make solely rests on the shoulders of the parents, which is where it should be. There's no need to have a "dietary dictatorship".

Oh yeah, I like ketchup, too, and there are now low sodium and sugar-free versions out there.

Buff Orpington Inactive Member26 Oct 2011 7:36 a.m. PST

And "french fries" as you 'mericans call chips aren't french. (They're belgian.)
And vastly better with Mayo.

chuck05 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian26 Oct 2011 7:59 a.m. PST

There is a school district here in the states, I forget where, that is banning all home made lunches. It seems school officials think they can do a better job than a childs parents at providing what is "good"

Personal logo richarDISNEY of the RDGC Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 8:02 a.m. PST

I work in Sac, and I have not heard about this yet.
There was some hubbub about banning them in schools, but I think that got nixed.
beer

Martin26 Oct 2011 8:15 a.m. PST


And "french fries" as you 'mericans call chips aren't french. (They're belgian.)
And vastly better with Mayo.

Sacrilige!!

Personal logo Flintloque Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 8:28 a.m. PST

Good fries don't need ketchup OR mayo (or vinegar for that matter).

Henrix:
And "french fries" as you 'mericans call chips aren't french. (They're belgian.) They're not a big thing there.
Well, I don't know about that. But I do know that my wife & I were very amused by the waiter, at a sidewalk cafe literally in the shadow of Notre Dame, that asked "vud zhou leik Franche Fries vis zat?"…

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 8:35 a.m. PST

Y'all do realize that ketchup (which is mostly pureed tomato) is far healthier than mayonnaise? And french fries that are fried in a low-fat, low-cholesterol oil are actually quite healthy as well?

Ignorant activists have concocted the idea that ketchup has no nutrients (it's actually a good source of Vitamin C) and that fries will kill you (when they are simply potatoes, a good staple and a source of starch and fiber). Preparation choice makes a difference, of course, but the health threat is way overblown.

Saginaw26 Oct 2011 8:53 a.m. PST

"vud zhou leik Franche Fries vis zat?"…

"Now go 'way before I tawnt yeu zom more!" laugh

By the way, here's an example of how I would approach this: I'd stick with ketchup, but instead of regular French fries, how about French fried potato skins? Whenever I cook with potatoes, I always include the skins, not only for their fiber content, but their deep, earthy flavor, too.

Space Monkey26 Oct 2011 9:23 a.m. PST

Seriously though – all they are doing is making the kids ask for ketchup, rather than helping themselves. Having sat aghast once as my middle daughter put Ketchup on her Venison Casserole I rather sympathise.
That seems reasonable and I've got no issues with it. I expect the school to watch over kids while they have them, not letting them do dangerous/harmful things… and that includes loading up on sugar.

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 9:39 a.m. PST

Speaking of "food police" and hypocrisy:

link

Seems when not lecturing us as to what we should and shouldn't be eating, she's, as Paula Deen and others have observed of the First Lady:

"She has campaigned against obesity and has championed health eating.

But when First Lady Michelle Obama met celebrity chef Paula Deen she apparently ate like a horse!

Paula is not from the minimalistic school of cooking and is known for recipes like Gooey Butter Cake.

The TV star told the Washington Examiner that she and Michelle had more in common than you might expect.

She said: 'I did a show with Michelle and I just loved being with her.

'She probably ate more than any other guest I've ever had on the show.

'She kept eating even during commercials.'

After complimenting Michelle on her slim figure, Paula taught her how to fry shrimp during a TV segment in September 2008, shortly before the presidential election.

Paula said: 'You know what their favorite foods are — it's hot wings, you know, those kinds of foods that are not necessarily top-of-the-list healthy foods, so she's no different than the rest of us.

'We love those kinds of foods, we just know that we can't eat them everyday.'"

"Paula's now on a tour promoting her latest book, Paula Deen's Southern Cooking Bible.

Paula's revelation about Michelle's appetite certainly seems at odds with her role as the nation's food nanny.

She launched the Let's Move initiative with the lofty ambition of solving the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation and has campaigned tirelessly on healthy eating and fitness."

"SOME OF MICHELLE'S FAVOURITE DISHES

Here is a sample of what she has eaten in DC:

Soft-shell crab cooked tempura style with a ratatouille sauce; an "ethereal lobster burger" with scallop mousse and housemade chips
Rack of lamb
Fried green tomatoes, avocado and corn salsa and tomato relish; fried oysters; a hanger steak with fried onion rings and succotash
Butter poached lobster on butternut squash with a brown butter emulsion; venison au poivre and corn cake
Watermelon salad with feta; fried oyster po' boy; followed by samples of other items on the table: seafood crepe, shrimp and grits and buttermilk biscuits

She sometimes has a dirty martini and then follows it with wine.


So does Michelle really overeat while lecturing kids to clean up their diets?

According to Whitehousedossier.com, the answer is a simple yes.

The site reports that food writer Marian Burros, working for Politico.com, treated herself to dinner at 'the 33 or more restaurants' where Michelle has dined in Washington since her husband took office.

Burros tries to defend Michelle by pointing out she eats vegetables and sometimes skips dessert.

But it appeared most of what she is eats is fried, is meat on the bone or has plenty of sugar.

Read more: link


Yep. Those food police people sure do know what's best for everyone…especially when no one is watching them! But just don't put Catchup on it and it's OK.

<snark snark>

JJ

Space Monkey26 Oct 2011 10:13 a.m. PST

'We love those kinds of foods, we just know that we can't eat them everyday.'
I think her saying that, along with the fact that she's not a fat pig, kind of lets the air out of accusations of her being a 'hypocrite'. It's not as if she's Rosie O'Donnel saying, "Stay away from the cake!"
Eating at 33 restaurants in 3 years is not exactly a bacchanalia for someone in her position and I don't see why people get so bent out of shape over a First Lady promoting healthier eating for kids.

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 10:27 a.m. PST

I don't see why people get so bent out of shape over a First Lady promoting healthier eating for kids.

I do.

In my case, it is because she isn't talking about a balance of eating wisely and combining it with exercise, it is because she is promoting at government expense a lifestyle and practice that she herself does not follow. Also it isn't that she ate at the 33 restaurants, it is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of "healthy choices" in her menu selection.

I have no problem with kids being more active.
I have no problem with educating kids as to what better food choices are
I have no problem with parents taking responsibility for the foods they serve their kids and let them eat.

I DO have a problem when it is a government driven program, being headed up by someone who, although she may work out enough to be fit, does not practice what she preaches.

…kind of lets the air out of accusations of her being a 'hypocrite'….

Not at all. She is preaching one thing for others and not holding herself to the same standards and limits. That qualifies her as a hypocrite. the fact that Rosie O'Donuts would be a bigger one in the example you posed does not disqualify the FLOTUS as her actions are hypocritical when compared to what she is trying to shove down America's throats.

Same category as the rock stars with their private jets and bus caravans talking about a green lifestyle, President chastising the RW for their tone of comments while neither minding his own language or doing anything to temper the heated rhetoric of the DEMs, Al Gore lecturing on energy consumption, Jimmy Swaggart lecturing people on leading a holy life, or many of the various organizations who demand tolerance for themselves while being intolerant of those with whom they do not agree. Not unique to the folks in the WH now, or either side of the aisle. Just have a low tolerance level for sanctimonious hypocrites who believe in "do as I say, not as I do."


It isn't the government's place to either dictate to or pressure food places as to what they serve and not serve, how to prepare it, or what the portion size, sodium content, fat content or anything else is. That seems to me to be the role of the individual, and in the case of small children the role of their parents.

JJ

Brian Bronson Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 10:30 a.m. PST

There is a school district here in the states, I forget where, that is banning all home made lunches. It seems school officials think they can do a better job than a childs parents at providing what is "good"

This was at a public school in Chicago:
link

Though I suspect the real reason is to artificially inflate the demand for school lunches, thereby increasing the school's funding.

Whatever the reason, it's pretty reprehensible.

Space Monkey26 Oct 2011 11:03 a.m. PST

I do.

In my case, it is because she isn't talking about a balance of eating wisely and combining it with exercise, it is because she is promoting at government expense a lifestyle and practice that she herself does not follow. Also it isn't that she ate at the 33 restaurants, it is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of "healthy choices" in her menu selection.

So you know that she splurged at least 33 times… plus that Paula Dean thing… out of how many total meals? So you think that really gives you a handle on her normal eating habits? Enough to proclaim her a hypocrite?
I'm sure I could find reports of her eating salad somewhere… should I extrapolate from those that she's a vegetarian?
Those stories you site aren't evidence of anything except that she allows herself to eat decadent food once in a while… that she's not a total zealot about her food… doesn't mean it's her entire diet or even a disconnect from a generally healthy diet.

Why is it such a problem that it is a 'government driven program'? Doesn't seem much different to me than the 'President's Fitness Challenge' or Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say 'No'' promotion.

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 11:12 a.m. PST

Enough to proclaim her a hypocrite?

Yep. Normal eating habits aren't the issue here at all. Just like I hold the others I identified as hypocrites as well. You can't be preaching one thing for the great unwashed masses to be doing while not only NOT doing it yourself, but repeatedly and publicly not doing so yourself.

If she was preaching what she does it is one thing. It isn't. That makes her hypocritical. Have you heard her talk about it being OK to eat high fat and high caloric foods provided you balance them with proper activity? I haven't.

Why is it such a problem that it is a 'government driven program'? Doesn't seem much different to me than the 'President's Fitness Challenge' or Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say 'No'' promotion.

Simple. I believe in personal responsibility not government dictated behavior. The Obama approach is to intervene in things, not just to encourage better behavior. What's more, the 'President's Fitness Challenge' or Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say 'No'' promotions were just encouragement, not getting involved in what commercial entities should and should not be doing. They were also headed up by a President who practiced fitness and a First Lady who similarly "Just Said No." I see a big difference between the government taking an informative role in the lives of its people and an interfering and directional role in peoples lives. It is no secret in the food industry or the news sources that FLOTUS pressure was a direct influence in the business decisions of fast food and snack food companies. Google for yourself.

You may disagree with me and that's fine – I don't intend to carry this on other than to answer your questions. I just had a point to make and have do so.

JJ

Space Monkey26 Oct 2011 11:41 a.m. PST

Yep, I disagree… we'll leave it at that.

Mako1126 Oct 2011 11:45 a.m. PST

Yea, I've heard about the school trying to ban home-made lunches.

Wouldn't fly with my family, even if they paid for all of them.

I've had school lunches, and they are awful.

Don't forget, ketchup is a vegetable (well, technically a fruit, but I digress)!

Question that?

Actually, it was the government that declared that.

Space Monkey26 Oct 2011 11:59 a.m. PST

I think agriculture has it that 'vegetables' are crops that go into soups and stews…
As a (former) botanist it always bugged me.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 12:11 p.m. PST

Damn Food Nazis.

It's one thing to put junkie and healthy vending machines side by side and just let people choose. But it is quite another to force people to give up time-honored junk foods.

Time to implement containment protocol.

Dan

Andrew May126 Oct 2011 12:29 p.m. PST

Yeah, right, let's damn them.

But Michelle Obama and her children are not obese, whereas many of the kids whose parents allow them to eat a highly processed junk food diet are.

See the problem?

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP26 Oct 2011 1:45 p.m. PST

The problem is obvious. It is the solution on which we are disagreeing.

NOT the government's role to police food. If you are in favor of the government forcing compliance on fat, sugar and sodium content, where do you draw the line? What else should they be regulating and legislating "for the good of society?" Where does personal responsibility enter in to the discussion?


JJ

Henrix26 Oct 2011 1:46 p.m. PST

I also object to the articles introduction that "The lunches of French children have just gotten a lot blander".

I can only say: What?

There are few things as bland as ketchup.

There's nothing inherently wrong with ketchup – but using it all the time with everything is destroying what should be good food.

Here's a mouth watering post about french school lunches. Where in Lovecraft's name would you say they should use ketchup?
link


It isn't about limiting what you (or your kid) eats – it is about showing more things to eat, expanding your tastes.

Garand26 Oct 2011 1:51 p.m. PST

So Michelle Obama goes out to eat 33 times in 3 years (which, math being a useful tool, means she goes out to eat slightly less than once a month). If you "splurge" once a month but eat healthy/exercise ever other day of the month, why is this a problem? If you're going to a restaurant, you're going for good tasting/prepared food, not to eat the salad. It is IMHO less healthy to live like an aesthetic, because without the outlet of "treating" yourself the risk of having a binge and undoing all the previous work (not to mention developing eating disorders) increases.

Damon.

Personal logo Mexican Jack Squint Sponsoring Member of TMP Fezian26 Oct 2011 4:06 p.m. PST

I really shouldn't come to the Ranting section.

It does nothing for my faith in human intelligence, judgement or kindness. Or even the simple act of bothering to find out whether the thing ranted about is actually true.

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP27 Oct 2011 5:43 a.m. PST

which, math being a useful tool…

Garand,

Feeling a bit snarky, eh? I'd add "reading comprehension" to your list of useful tools as well.

I really shouldn't come to the Ranting section.

Howard,

Since I don't like RAP music or local radio call in shows, I avoid selecting them on the radio. Seems to work wonders.

wink

JJ

Personal logo Klebert L Hall Supporting Member of TMP27 Oct 2011 6:49 a.m. PST

Seriously though – all they are doing is making the kids ask for ketchup, rather than helping themselves. Having sat aghast once as my middle daughter put Ketchup on her Venison Casserole I rather sympathise.

The problem is, deciding how and what your childrens' eating habits are is none of their business. Seems like that's a parent's job, though most of them abrogate it these days.

Why didn't you just tell your daughter not to do that? Was she an adult at the time?
-Kle.

Mikhail Lerementov Inactive Member27 Oct 2011 1:45 p.m. PST

Not sure it makes much difference what you eat. Just watched a Nova on the Iceman. He was in his 40's, had about a quarter pound of food in his stomach that was composed of Ibex and grain, had the arteries of a 21st century male, a bit clogged up, had arthritis, brown eyes, and lymes disease. His hands were soft, indicating he probably was a shepard or hunter, and had highly developed leg muscles. Interestingly we seem to have been eating badly for 5300 years.

Should the government tell kids what to eat? Probably. In most cases they are paying for it. Most school lunch programs receive Federal funding. If you pay for it, you get to pick.

Mikhail Lerementov Inactive Member27 Oct 2011 1:53 p.m. PST

Oh, and Terrement, taking what someone did 3 years ago as an indication of what they are doing today is a dangerous assumption, and you know what they say about those who assume. And Garrand, 33 times in 3 years is slightly more than once a month.

I used to eat red meat, fried foods, and a lot of stuff not considered good for your heart. And nearly paid for it. Fortunately my brand new doctor understood that the burning pain across my shoulders indicated I had a clogged artery. An angioplasty solved that problem, but I didn't change my eating habits until I had to have 5 done at once. Until I got an incurable cancer I changed completely the way I ate, even trying vegetarianism for a while, then moving to pollo vegetarianism. Now that I have a fatal disease, I don't really care what I eat. The bad foods are back. I figure it's better to go quickly from a heart attack than slowly from cancer. So if you looked at how I ate 3 years ago you would probably pat me on the back and hold me up as an example of someone doing the right thing. You would be completely wrong. So before calling someone a hypocrite, you might just consider how long an amount of time has passed since what you are basing your assumptions on.

Zyphyr27 Oct 2011 3:33 p.m. PST

And Garrand, 33 times in 3 years is slightly more than once a month.

No, it isn't. Remember that there are 12 months in a year. 3 Years is 36 months. 33/36 is 0.91667 times per month.

Mikhail Lerementov Inactive Member27 Oct 2011 4:26 p.m. PST

If there are 12 months in a year and you only go out 11 times in a year, then you are going out slightly more than once a month. Actually it is 11/365ths. Or every 33.18 days. A bit more than a month.

Zyphyr27 Oct 2011 4:46 p.m. PST

Mikhail, 'more than once a month' means the average time between occurrences is less than a month.

Sane Max28 Oct 2011 3:50 a.m. PST

Why didn't you just tell your daughter not to do that? Was she an adult at the time?
-Kle.

she didn't do it again. I have no problem with schools controlling my children's bevaviour – they eat there 33% of the time. (or for Zyphyr – 33.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333)

Pat

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP28 Oct 2011 9:05 a.m. PST

Oh, and Terrement, taking what someone did 3 years ago as an indication of what they are doing today is a dangerous assumption

Between her history, her human vacuum cleaner routine with Paula Deen and observations of her at other public events and WH events, I feel pretty safe with the characterization.

Again, I'm not the food police – I have no problem with what she eats. My problem is her hypocritically preaching to everyone else how and what THEY should eat, and for food concerns, using her power and influence to pressure them as to what and how they should serve food, but not following the same rules herself. It isn't the government's role to DECIDE. They can certainly INFORM and ENCOURAGE, but they are going well beyond that.

That's now about the third time or so I've had to make those points very same in this thread. This time I'm typing r-e-a-l-l-y slow so that any who still haven't gotten it will hopefully not assume I'm ranting about something that I am not.

Believe me, as many of you already know, I'm quite capable of providing sufficient rant material without y'all deciding what I'm really saying is not what I've posted.

JJ

JJ

Mikhail Lerementov Inactive Member28 Oct 2011 10:11 a.m. PST

IIII'''lllll TTTTYYYPPPEE VVVEEERRRYYY SSLLOOWW SSOO YYOOUU GGEETT TTHHEE PPOOIINNTT. You have no idea how the woman eats at home or how she feeds her family. Unless you've been invited to dinner at the WH, which I doubt. What a person did on a 3-4 year old TV show is hardly proof of what they are doing today. So provide me with a copy of a WH menu for, oh, lets say, dinner if you intend to prove that she hasn't changed her ways.

Andrew Preziosi28 Oct 2011 12:39 p.m. PST

What Howard said…

I really shouldn't come to the Ranting section.

It does nothing for my faith in human intelligence, judgement or kindness. Or even the simple act of bothering to find out whether the thing ranted about is actually true.

But I'll add this too…it's not THE government…it's a bunch of municipalities that are doing this…THE (Federal) Government may be suggesting things and you may not like the people who are assisting trying to get the message out…but don't lump your dislike (though I think "dislike" is a rather moderate term) for certain parties and individuals into your viewpoint that THE government is taking away your rights.

If City X, County Y or State Z want to take "Crunchy Choco-Potatoe Chip covered Chicken Wing type food product" away from your little Jimmy or Janey's lunch room…take it up with THAT governmental entity…and leave THE government out of it.

As for Paula Deen…she lost me years ago…when she said her EYE-Talian Friends…and I haven't lost any sleep over that parting of the ways since.

The Federal government isn't perfect…but maybe more ranting about how corrupt the FBI is…Whitey Bolger anyone…wire-tapping Alicia Keyes…than those Nasty Food Police persons who are trying to point out that a PB&J Sammie with a few carrot sticks isn't going to kill your dear darling chylde dead to death twenty years down the pike.

OY…as in like…VEY!!!

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP28 Oct 2011 1:19 p.m. PST

So provide me with a copy of a WH menu for, oh, lets say, dinner if you intend to prove that she hasn't changed her ways.

Even if I did, you would not believe it, nor would it "prove" anything as they have kitchen staff on call 24/7 just like any other WH occupant and she can have whatever the heck she wants on the menu or not. As she does when she's out.


and observations of her at other public events and WH events, I feel pretty safe with the characterization.

Been there, seen that…

also:
link

link

link

it's not THE government…it's a bunch of municipalities that are doing this…THE (Federal) Government may be suggesting things and you may not like the people who are assisting trying to get the message out…but don't lump your dislike (though I think "dislike" is a rather moderate term) for certain parties and individuals into your viewpoint that THE government is taking away your rights.

Although skillfully done, "What's Cooking, Uncle Sam?" is marred by its cheerleading for the massive role of Washington in the lives of Americans. There is never a scintilla of doubt that federal regulation has been, and still is, a good thing; never a hesitation about how the thicket of regulation and rules affects the individual liberties of millions of Americans, for good or bad. For example, the massive failure of the federal prohibition of alcohol is ignored, as are controversial farm subsidies and agricultural tariffs, among the many other less than successful, or controversial, programs.

The exhibition coincides nicely with the nutritional directives now emanating from the East Wing of the White House. The catalogue, but not the exhibition, features a full-page photo of Michelle Obama, our nation's dietitian-in-chief and anti-obesity crusader, in her White House garden with a group of toque-wearing chefs looking like they're eager to harvest some of the First Lady's healthy foods (perhaps arugula). This bit of gratuitous puffery by the National Archives, an independent federal agency, is unseemly, but not out of line with its exhibition's sunny view of big government.

link

Sure sounds like "THE government" to me…

and:

Michelle Obama on Deciding What Kids Eat: ‘We Can't Just Leave it Up to The Parents'
link
When she is throwing her weight around in her capacity as the first lady, when you have the decisions taken by the Dept of Education regarding school lunches, etc, yeah it is THE government in addition to locales like SF.

link

ANY time the government is making decisions because "we can't just leave it to the parents" I see red flags. What ELSE should they be able to decide because it can't be left to the parents? How do you see the dividing line between government (city/state/federal) and personal responsibility? Has nothing to do with my dislike for the current occupants of the WH. It has to do with what the role of the individual is vs the role of government is regardless of who is in there.

If anyone wants to start a rant about the FBI, or the DOJ with Fast & Furious, or expediting of loans to bad bet industries like Solyndra and other payoffs, or international politics whether under GWB or BHO, or whatever else you like, please do so and I'll be happy to add my .02.

But in a rant about the food police, I try to keep the topic to the food police.

JJ

Mikhail Lerementov Inactive Member28 Oct 2011 5:03 p.m. PST

Umm, you're the one who brought up MB and hypocrisy. If the shoe fits.

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.