Expecting children to eat and enjoy foods that overweight middle-aged adults eat to keep their weight under control is, shall we say, optimistic.
Under the National School Lunch Program, participating schools must provide lunches — including free or reduced price lunches — with minimum amounts of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and whole grains. Also, in what presumably falls outside the hunger-free aspect of the act, there’s a calorie cap: 850 for high school lunches, 700 for middle schools and a mere 650 calories for kids in elementary school.Yeah, kids just love to eat peas and carrots!
Students can only have one serving of meat or other protein. However, rich kids can buy a second portion each day on their own dime.
Servings of carbohydrates such as potatoes are limited to just a single serving of three-fourths of a cup per student.
On the plus side, students can eat as many fruits and vegetables as they want.
850 calories? Seriously? 650 calories for grade school kids? These are growing children, you know? They need food! And what's with the one serving of protein? Skim milk, low or no fat foods? "Sure, we don't care if your kids all end up diabetic!"
Michelle Obama has demonstrated, yet again, how completely out of touch she is, and has similarly demonstrated how little the federal government knows about anything. It's pretty obvious that the people pushing this plan have never faced eating lunch in a public school, nor have their kids.
"Students can eat as many fruits and vegetables as they want." This makes it sound as if the cafeterias are burgeoning cornucopia of fresh produce, from which the kids can select anything; or some kind of salad bar, laden with selections of tasty and attractive vegetables and fruits.
What it actually means is that there are extra-large pans of peas, or beets, or corn, or what-have-you waiting in the steam tables for lunchtime, and students can say, "Gimme extra corn!" "Fruit" will be limited to things like applesauce or canned fruit salad, because those things are cheap, but--again--the kid will have to exercise some forethought and get it while he's going through the lunch line.
...because kids at school don't take leisurely hour-long lunches and stroll back to their desks where their afternoons' work is waiting patiently; they have perhaps twenty minutes for lunch and may not take so much as one more minute, which puts a premium on their time in the lunchroom. Certainly they don't have time to go wait in line again for more applesauce or fruit salad.
(To say nothing of how an actual salad bar would fare at a public school. You'd have to have a cadre of teachers keeping a very close watch on the kids lest some of them spit in the food.)
And for their efforts, the kids end up eating food that has no staying power, so they're hungry again half an hour or so after lunch. High glycemic index and low fat--the perfect recipe for inducing adult-onset diabetes. Whee!
* * *
Man interrogated by FBI because of something he posted on Facebook. But we were born free.
Commentor James Dixon has it right:
> ... he was contacted by Officer Jason Kuafman of the Prescott Valley Police Department and was told that he needed to come to the police station for an interview with the FBI.Unless they are arresting or detaining you, you are not required to go with them.
To which the correct response is: Am I under arrest? And if told no, then the answer is no. And refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer present.
Another commentor supplies an exellent response to the situation: "Thank you for contacting me. I do not wish to answer any questions. If you need anything further, you may contact my lawyer, after I have retained one."
* * *
I sincerely hope this is all the commentary I have to provide on Mily Cyrus.
The whole issue is, as far as I'm concerned, a complete non-issue. The day I give a rat's ass over the idiocy of a celebutard is the day I turn in my brain and begin voting Democrat.
Okay, so Miley Cyrus put on an act that was typically "transgressive", the way our modern media culture prefers its transgressiveness to occur: girl who rose to stardom on being a cute innocent thing hits eighteen and immediately turns into a raging slut. (See also Atomic Fungus #2119: Miley Cyrus can't afford panties?)
(In fact, my conclusion there was as apt then as now: "The entire thing is a densely-packed horseshit.")
A truly transgressive act, these days, would involve someone coming out as a born-again Christian and seriously denouncing the music industry as Satanic (seriously, not ironically) and then leading the audience through the Lord's Prayer before doing a song about something wholesome. But something like that would be the end of that person's career. The transgressions must be politically correct, else they are mere sexism/racism/bigotry/homophobia.
But it is simply not transgressive any longer if everyone on the planet is doing it and it's what young female stars must do in order to transition from innocent young starlet to adult star. Instead of being, "Oh my God, did you see what Miley Cyrus did?" the typical response now--at least, from anyone who has real problems to worry about--is a roll of the eyes.
Why anyone would want to make that kind of transition in the first place is, to me, a mystery. (Except of course that Heinlein cautioned us that the answer is almost always "money".) Look at Britney Spears, for crying out loud. Jesus.
If Miley Cyrus had stripped nude on stage and had performed some actual sex act--note that I am predicting something I expect to happen with some starlet, sooner rather than later, unless Jesus returns first--that would be transgressive enough to merit this bullshit.
...the race hucksters who are buying into this ZOMG TEH RACISS nonsense are doing nothing but furthering Ms. Cyrus' career aspirations.
Camille Paglia opines on the matter. Camille Paglia is one of the few liberal thinkers that I have any respect for, because she actually thinks and doesn't just parrot Democrat talking points. She regards Madonna as an artist (which puts a strain on my respect for Ms. Paglia's intellect) but agrees that Ms. Cyrus' nonsense is anything but transgressive art.
* * *
Now for a palate-cleanser: Whiskey is for getting drunk. The writer of this article correctly excoriates people who pay insane amounts of money for expensive whiskey and then drown it in sugar water. Stupid. If the point is to enjoy a fine whiskey, why the everlasting fuck would you eradicate its flavor in a wash of cheap ginger ale? That's just stupid.
If you want to blow your money on expensive alcohols, that's your business--but at least have the decency to drink it neat. If you can only drink it mixed with Coke or something, save your money and buy the cheap stuff.
* * *
Steven Den Beste channels himself from the old U.S.S. Clueless days. This time, it's about Obama's "red line" re: Syria and its use of chemical weapons, and if it's not a "must read" it's the next best thing.
AoSHQ then has a post with a marvelous title on the very same subject:
President Daddy Issues Wants To Attack Syria In A Way That's "Just Muscular Enough Not To Get Mocked"?This story makes a lot more sense if you read SDB's post first; the fact is, President Serious You Guys has painted himself into a corner. He must do something--he said he would, if Syria gassed people. Syria gassed people; failure to act will make President Clusterfuck look even more weak than he already did.
And exactly the way Bosnia came just in time to take Monica Lewinsky off the front pages, here Syria has come along to take all of Obama's scandals off the front pages.
Karl Denninger opines that we're about to put ourselves on the same side of this fight as Al Qaeda. Thrillsville.
Sarah Hoyt reminds us that such wars are usually the venue of Democrat adventurism.
Mom always used to say, of Democrat Presidents, that they first ruin the economy and then get us into a war. So far, she's been wrong once, and the only reason she was wrong was that Carter didn't get us into a shooting war where we actually sent people to shoot back at those who were attacking us. (I've argued before that Carter's policies were what convinced the islamic terrorists they could attack us with impunity.) But otherwise? Clinton and Obama have done it. ("The economy was great in the Clinton years!" Sure. Until about 1998, at which point it began to turn south; and in 1999 when his Justice Department decided to go after Microsoft on antitrust grounds, that precipitated the end of the Dot Com Boom. By 2000 we were in a recession, albeit a short one that resembles a party next to today's depression.)
So: There Will Be War, and Democrats gonna drink our milkshake. There's no good news here.
* * *
In the "big surprise" department, we have record unemployment in France. France is heavily socialist and it is virtually impossible fire someone once hired there due to their draconian employment regulations. The economy being what it is world-wide, coupled with their labor laws French companies are even more disinclined to hire people than American companies are. And so? Record unemployment, because socialism.
* * *
If you wish to attack a random stranger, unprovoked, be prepared for the outcome to be not to your liking. Simply put, you cannot count on that stranger being unarmed and incapable of defending himself. On the other hand, if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes, and I have no sympathy for people who end up dead because they attacked someone for no reasonw whatsoever. (Other than, perhaps, "I was bored.")
If you attack someone, you'd better be prepared to end up hurt or dead, and if you do, it's your own damned fault. It's not "racism" and it's not "guns" and it's not "unfair". This kid is lucky to be alive.
And while we're at it, here's another entry in the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" category: dumbass trying to get away from the cops trips over his own stupid sagging jeans, and gets arrested. "The underwear goes under the pants," Denis Leary said. "That's why it's called 'under-fuckin'-wear'."
* * *
Climatologists simply refuse to publish any paper that might refuge anthropogenic global warming.
Richard Feynman said it best: "And this is science?"
* * *
Yet another demonstration of wit and class. Because of course the thing you do, when you are a "progressive", is to talk about how much you'd like to rape a woman who disagrees with your opinions.
Oh, sorry; make that "fantasize about having anal sex with".
The word they use is "progressive" but "progressive" is merely the latest fashionable word for "leftist" since "liberal" became a perjorative (again) sometime after Clinton.
...and it's the same shit, regardless of the label.
* * *
A setback. It seems obvious to these admittedly untrained eyes that the new culvert is incapable of handling the amount of water that wants to pass through it. But what the hell do I know?
* * *
Today was cooler than yesterday--less humid and lower temperature--but still hot, so the bunker is still closed and the AC is still on. It's going to be that way for the foreseeable future, too, unless tonight it's miraculously cool outside. It's not the way to bet.
Next week the forecast suggests it'll be cooler again, though.
...the grass is dry and crunchy. I hope someone doesn't decide to toss a lit cigarette out of their car, because dang.