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.

So while the shutdown continues, lawmakers are now posed with a new question: To fundraise, or not to fundraise? In times of political crisis, lawmakers generally try to avoid fundraisers. After all, no elected official wants news to leak that they were eating shrimp with millionaires while 800,000 government workers are on furlough. But with the midterm elections just one year away, some politicians have decided it’s best to stay away. For some, it's a matter of logistics: House Speaker John Boehner had to cancel a significant weekend fundraiser last month, and he may be forced to miss an upcoming event in Orange County, Calif. as well.

Vulnerable lawmakers are likely to avoid fundraising. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., was seen at a National Association of Realtors fundraiser earlier this week. Republicans blasted the vulnerable Democrat for raising money instead of negotiating over the impasse.

But politicians in safe seats who can take some political heat are continuing to fundraise, even sounding indignant at times. Roll Call reported:

Several more Democrats in safe seats continued to prime the pump. Reps. John D. Dingell and Sander M. Levin of Michigan and Reps. Charles B. Rangel and Nydia M. Velázquez of New York went forward with their fundraising events.

“Why shouldn’t I?” Dingell responded to a question about one of his events. “I don’t have to ask permission to have a fundraiser do I?”

Dems and Reps

Roll Call also explained the difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue:

Some Democrats see the shutdown as the GOP’s fault and argue that fundraising is a means to combat Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. But other members, such as Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., canceled their events.

By comparison, Republicans are more skittish about raising money during the shutdown. One GOP operative said the only edict given to incumbents is “to use your head.”

And some have decided to just go ahead and fundraise — or at least try to keep their donors happy somehow:

Still, some staffers concede their bosses are continuing to fundraise quietly. With Congress in session over the weekends, many members can’t go home. As a result, they have blocks of unscheduled time on their hands — an unusual situation for members while they’re in Washington.

Typically, congressional staff are trained to spot such windows of free time and schedule call time for the boss. But even phone time has proven less fruitful. Members are burned out from the fundraising push at the end of the second quarter. More to the point, donors don’t want to hear their telephone pleas anyway.

Instead, aides say members are forced to use newfound free time for “donor maintenance” — offering thanks for previous donations.

And then there’s First Lady Michelle Obama, one of the most prolific Democratic fundraisers. She has made several trips to the political ATM otherwise known as California.  But even the First Lady had to cancel a swing to the west coast:

First Lady Michelle Obama has cancelled a planned fundraiser on Friday for the Democratic National Committee that was to be held at the home of “Everybody Loves Raymond” Phil Rosenthal and his wife Monica, sources say.

The first lady was to be the headliner at the event, billed as a first-time-in-California one hour “off the cuff discussion” with a limited number of guests. Tickets for the roundtable started at $10,000, with a lower price point for a reception at $1,250 per person.

The final quarter of the year is typically a slow time for fundraising, as the holiday season can keep members and their donors away from each other. But with the shutdown, it’s likely to be slower than ever. Some might argue that’s not such a bad thing.

By Chris Reed

This Associated Press story about student uprisings against federal school-lunch rules is one more reminder of how oblivious the statist left is about how people think. Of course kids want filling meals — not meals that Michelle Obama would adjudge as sufficient and character-building.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Agriculture Department is responding to criticism over new school lunch rules by allowing more grains and meat in kids’ meals.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told members of Congress in a letter Friday that the department will do away with daily and weekly limits of meats and grains. Several lawmakers wrote the department after the new rules went into effect in September saying kids aren’t getting enough to eat.

School administrators also complained, saying set maximums on grains and meats are too limiting as they try to plan daily meals.

But nothing will top the L.A. Times story from November 2011 over the student revolt against the glop served by L.A. Unified:

“It’s lunchtime at Van Nuys High School and students stream into the cafeteria to check out the day’s fare: black bean burgers, tostada salad, fresh pears and other items on a new healthful menu introduced this year by the Los Angeles Unified School District. But Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don’t even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it ‘nasty, rotty stuff.’ So what do they eat? The juniors pull three bags of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks. ….

“For many students, L.A. Unified’s trailblazing introduction of healthful school lunches has been a flop. Earlier this year, the district got rid of chocolate and strawberry milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, nachos and other food high in fat, sugar and sodium. Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles. ….

“’It’s nasty, nasty,’ said Andre, a member of InnerCity Struggle, an East L.A. nonprofit working to improve school lunch access and quality. …. ‘Like dog food,’ said Christian Campus, 14, adding that he and his football teammates eat the lunches only to sustain them through practice.

Like dog food!

Katy Grimes: Did you know that more than “one in five children don’t know where their next meal will come from?” Over the weekend I caught the commercial, sponsored by childhungerendshere.com that made this ludicrous claim.

This appears to be a shady organization funded by First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move,” and Con Agra foods foundation, a creative conglomoration of federal grant money grabbers.  Con Agra is a packaged food giant, and claims that 97 percent of American households use their products. 

Be very wary of these suspicious hunger claims–especially when there has never been such a high rate of obesity in children in America. With more than 50 percent of the population receiving some form of government benefits, most of these same kids also receive four meals a day from public schools.

Take a look for yourself–this taxpayer funded hunger boondoggle needs to be exposed. One of the Con Agra solutions to ending hunger is food drives; they encourage Americans to organize food drives using Con Agra packaged and canned food. Brilliant.

While Con Agra has a lengthy, fascinating history, this cooked-up hunger-in-America scam is a big lie and should anger taxpayers. Giving to legitimate charities is the best way to help those who are really hungry.

Our colleague Dave Roberts today reported on how the California Legislature might ban food trucks within 1,500 feet of schools. The trucks are selling stuff kids like — burritos and burgers — instead of the tastless slop First Lady Michelle Obama insists they subsist on.

(Even though her hubby, the prez, doesn’t follow her guidelines. How does Barack stay thin? The old fashioned way: cigarettes.)

But what’s in that glop they serve kids in public schools? TheDaily.com reports:

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s continued purchase of so-called pink slime for school lunches makes no sense, according to two former microbiologists at the Food Safety Inspection Service.

“‘I have a 2-year-old son,’ microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein told The Daily. ‘And you better believe I don’t want him eating pink slime when he starts going to school.’

“It was Zirnstein who first coined the term ‘pink slime’ after touring a Beef Products Inc. production facility in 2002 as part of an investigation into salmonella contamination in packaged ground beef. In an email to his colleagues shortly after the visit, Zirnstein said he did not ‘consider the stuff to be ground beef.’

“Made by grinding together connective tissue and beef scraps normally destined for dog food and rendering, BPI’s Lean Beef Trimmings are then treated with ammonia hydroxide, a process that kills pathogens such as salmonella and E. coli.”

“The resulting pinkish substance is later blended into traditional ground beef and hamburger patties.”

I wish I hadn’t just had lunch. I’m getting queasy just reading about what the government is shoving down our kids’ gullets.

“‘For retired microbiologist Carl Custer, a 35-year veteran of the Food Safety Inspection Service, the idea of mixing in BPI’s Lean Beef Trimmings into more nutritious, pure ground beef was itself problematic.

“’We originally called it soylent pink,’ Custer told The Daily. ‘We looked at the product and we objected to it because it used connective tissues instead of muscle. It was simply not nutritionally equivalent [to ground beef]. My main objection was that it was not meat’.”

“Soylent Pink.” There, he said it.

That’s a reference to the classic 1973 Sci Fi movie, “Soylent Green,” in which Charlton Heston discovers — spoiler alert! — that a special food the government is feeding everybody is made of …

…let’s let Charlton tell us…

March 9, 2012