Will severe school lunch policies eventually cost Dems? Maybe

Will severe school lunch policies eventually cost Dems? Maybe

lunchThe news this week that UC San Francisco had “unveiled a repository of sugar science, designed to collect the evidence against sweetened foods and disseminate that information to the public — and persuade people to boot fructose and most other refined sugars out of their diets to protect their health — and not just their waistlines” got me to thinking about how nanny-state nutrition politics were like nanny-state transportation/energy politics. In the abstract, they sound great. People should eat right! People should ride mass transit! People shouldn’t use fossil fuels!

But when you try to make people live by these ideals, a lot of them don’t like it — including those normally sympathetic to the left. This very much includes the young people inspired by America’s first nonwhite president, whose 2008 and 2012 campaigns evoked idealism and devotion to the greater good.

I appreciate the “tyranny of the anecdote” theory that holds that vivid personal experiences shouldn’t lead someone to exaggerate their relevance. I have to a degree discounted my exposure to how much students and parents don’t like how their local school districts are following an Obama administration edict to make school lunches more healthy.

But ever since the L.A. Times had a story in late 2011 in which students compared their lunches to “dog food,” I’ve paid close attention to the reaction around the nation. Recently, when I did a Google search of such stories, I was struck by their uniformity.

The lead paragraph is almost always about a really meager, unappetizing portion that a school district is offering, with the accompanying photo showing what the gripes are about. The second is usually about a district official defending the lunches and/or saying the Obama administration left it no choice.

And the third paragraph? Usually, it’s a student declaring the lunches were ridiculously small or unappetizing or both.

Journalism convention would be to later return to the question of student perspective and cite a student who defends the Obama policy. But that only can take place if such a student exists.

I’m now read 100-plus stories about school lunch complaints, and I’ve never seen one student defend the administration.

A think tank that likes the Obama policy says evidence suggests complaints are dwindling. But I still haven’t heard a parent or a student stick up for the policy.

This just might have long-term political effects. Consultants from the mid-1960s to 1972 used to say there was nothing like the military draft to focus the the attention of high school kids. Just about nothing since has caught students’ attention as the Selective Service System has faded from relevance.

Obviously, the stakes aren’t comparable in the student lunch fight. It isn’t about kids possibly dying in a pointless war. But people who focus on the size of the stakes don’t understand how even issues that seem minor can generate intense feelings. There are people who have literally no complaints about Obama besides how their kids hate lunch. There are also people who have no strong feelings about politics but hate the Obama lunch policy because of what their kids say.

Their children seem unlikely to be future voters who will have good feelings about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

When I was a student at a well-regarded public high school, there was nothing we griped more about than lunch. The pizza was so awful it seemed like a personal violation. If I thought it was Jimmy Carter’s fault, I would have soured on him sooner than I did.

12 comments

Write a comment
  1. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 13 November, 2014, 08:20

    “This very much includes the young people inspired by America’s first nonwhite president, whose 2008 and 2012 campaigns evoked idealism and devotion to the greater good.”

    Would you people please stop spreading misinformation? The POTUS came out of a white woman! He’s HALF WHITE – not “NONWHITE”! I have no idea why the black community worships that flim-flam con artist! Now he’s going to use his dicatorial powers to legalize millions of indigents who broke into the country and stole jobs from black citizens!!! Those illegals compete directly with many blacks in the job market!!! And Obola is going to legalize them and let them keep the jobs that they stole!!! TALK ABOUT A LAWLESS SOCIETY!!! Putin is right. The ruling class only enforces the laws that target the average US citizen. If you’re a bankster you can launder billions of narco dollars and have no fear of going to jail. If you’re an indigent foregin illegal you can break into the nation, steal jobs and leech off US resources. BUT GOD HELP YOU IF YOU’RE A US CITIZEN AND YOU WRITE A BAD CHECK FOR $200!!! YOUR BUTT GOES STRAIGHT TO JAIL!!!! 🙁

    Btw, the schools are supposed to be in the EDUCATION business, NOT the RESTAURANT business! IF THE PARENTS SIRE THE KIDS THE PARENT SHOULD FEED THEM!!! It should NOT be MY responsibility as a taxpayer to feed K-12 students breakfast and lunch!!! I DIDN’T SIRE THOSE KIDS!!! WHY THE HELL DO I HAVE TO FEED THEM??? When I went to K-12 either I packed my lunch or my mom packed it!!! I didn’t rely on the taxpayers to feed me!!! And somehow I managed to go onto college!!!

    I am getting so sick of this crap!!! When are people going to take responsibility for their own lives instead of making all the rest of us carry their loads. F it!!! I’m going Galt!!!

    Reply this comment
  2. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 13 November, 2014, 10:07

    But the “nonwhite” reference just goes to show how easily people are brainwashed. Even intelligent journalists. Like Goebbels used to say “If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth”. I have little hope left for this country. Our citizens are just too stupid. They don’t figure stuff out until all the irreversible damage is already done. A nation of sheep. We’ve lost our democracy. If we took a vote on whether to give millions of indigent lawbreaking foreigners amnesty it would get voted down 70%-30%. But the stupid Americans will allow POTUS Obola to pull his crooked trickery and get away with it, thinking that the Republicans would save them!!! HAH! God almighty, folks!!! S-M-A-R-T-E-N U-P!!!!!!!! 😀

    Reply this comment
  3. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 13 November, 2014, 19:22

    Yawn.

    Reply this comment
  4. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 14 November, 2014, 16:26

    who in heck reads your stuff…..it is sick!

    Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 14 November, 2014, 23:39

      It’s not ‘sick’. It’s true. If it wasn’t you’d have the intestinal fortitude to point out a factual error. But you don’t. hah. But like a coward you only stand back and toss out insults. hah. I read you like a cheap paperback, Ahual!!!! 🙂

      Reply this comment
  5. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 15 November, 2014, 00:08

    Ah ……just when it looked like we all could get along together.

    No one takes these articles serious except tome scribes and masochist doomers…..

    Who cares about pensions, BK cities and unions…..boring, tired, repetitive, exhausting, not healthy mentally.

    Take a undeserved break for a long time….again……nothing changes. You’ll miss little.

    I’m sure Donkey can carry on quite satisfactorily!

    Reply this comment
    • Bill Gore
      Bill Gore 15 November, 2014, 20:31

      So then… why are you here?
      Are you and your fellow CWD trolls motivated by Rules for Radicals #4?
      Do you think you are scoring points with Hillary Clinton and the DNC?

      Reply this comment
  6. Bill Gore
    Bill Gore 15 November, 2014, 20:43

    OK-back to nutrition and school lunches..
    IMHO refined sugar is a VITAMIN next to aspartame/splenda. Our bodies can actually metabolize glucose, and our brains run on glucose and oxygen. Aspartame was discovered by accident as a DDT substitute. ‘Splenda’ is a form of chlorinated glucose. YUCK. Glucose/table sugar is NOT a problem if it is consumed IN MODERATION. Repeat: IN MODERATION. This means you are not an 800 lb COSTCO troll, looking for bargains on your scooter, gobbling down 100,000 calories a day in processed foods and sugar, so of course you are diabetic and your fingers are dropping off.
    Also-whats with this trend of ‘First Ladies’ taking over aspects of national policy? I do not remember seeing Michelle Obama on the ballot, or Queen Hillary for that matter, so can she just go back to giving dinner parties for foreign dictators and tastefully redecorating the blue room?

    Reply this comment
    • LetitCollapse
      LetitCollapse 16 November, 2014, 00:15

      “Also-whats with this trend of ‘First Ladies’ taking over aspects of national policy?”

      She’s positioning herself. Eventually she’s going to run for high office too, just like Hillary did. Michelle will ride Barrack’s coattails. What else could she do? Didn’t she lose her law license? This nation has become a joke. 😀

      Reply this comment
  7. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 16 November, 2014, 08:07

    Billy BooBoo

    Fair and Balanced….goose steppers need challenged…this is not 1933, you know.

    Reply this comment
  8. Spurwing Plover
    Spurwing Plover 28 November, 2015, 08:29

    Like that anti-beef freako Jeremy Rifkin and his whining that food that is fed to livestock should be fed to people instead well i live in a pretty well rural county(Ssiskiyou)and many cattle graze in the fields although some fed from the troughs and frankly someone needs to give this Rifkin idiot a big plate of grass at his next dinner party

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Newsom unveils gun initiative

Thrusting himself to the forefront of America’s campaign-season controversy around access to firearms, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom seized the opportunity

Abortion expansion bill gasps for life

April 27, 2012 By Dave Roberts California women abort their unborn children at a significantly higher rate than the rest

Party supports tax-hiking Villines

Steven Greenhut: The Republican Party supposedly was going to withhold its support from candidates who hike taxes, but insurance commissioner