January 14, 2011

Greasing My Spindle - Yet Again

Yes, I confess: I'm a serial spindle-greaser. Here are a few quickies from today's news...

With liberty, fraternity, and equality for all

In a recent survey by AP-GfK on the state of racial equality, 77% of respondents believe there has been significant progress towards that MLK-enunciated dream, statistically unchanged from the 75% who answered that way in 2006, before Barack H. Obama was elected president. Some quoted in the story lament that, "Just over one in five, 22 percent, say they feel there has been 'no significant progress' toward that dream."

I wonder what portion of that 22% comprises folks who have been closely following the follies and foibles of Attorney General Eric Holder's putative "Justice" Department.

But what puzzled me was this bit near the end:

The new poll also shows most of the nation in support of the King holiday. Three-quarters of those surveyed this year say King's birthday should be so honored, with 84 percent of non-white respondents believing so, compared to 68 percent of white respondents. Younger adults are also more apt to feel the birthday deserves the honor, as 81 percent among those under 50 years old supported the holiday, compared to 66 percent among those 50 to 64 and 62 percent among seniors.

The civil rights icon, who would have turned 82 on Saturday, is the only American who was not a U.S. president honored with a federal holiday.

Um, did I miss some holiday? I am completely unaware of any U.S. president honored with a federal holiday... indeed, any other American who is so honored at all. (Columbus was either a Portuguese or a Spaniard, depending whether you go by birth or residency.)

I've heard of something called Presidents Day; but I've also heard of Veterans Day -- and none of them is singled out by name either.

I wonder how many layers of editorial fact-checking that line sailed through? Perhaps the press-release transcribers at AP should take to wearing pajamas; it might improve their reportorial accuracy.

The jackass got his nose inside the tent

Via the Washington Times, we learn that the nanny State has segued into the school-dietician State:

The Obama administration ratcheted up its war on childhood obesity Thursday with a new set of federal rules that would limit the number of calories allowed in government-subsidized school meals, banning most trans fats while increasing the amounts of whole grains, fruits and vegetables.

The proposals, issued by the Agriculture Department, represent the first major revamping of school lunch guidelines in 15 years. The rules would apply to all full and partially subsidized meals and could affect 32 million children.

Yowza. As I noted before (see below), free and subsidized lunches are offered to tremendously more students than merely those who live in poverty:

• According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are approximately 49.4 million students enrolled in K-12 education.
• According to the U.S. Census, approximately 17.6% of all American residents under the age of 18 live below the poverty line.
• A little quick math tells us that, if we assume that kids actually attending school are not more likely to live in poverty than kids not attending school (it seems a pretty reasonable assumption -- they're probably less likely), then there should be about 8.7 million schoolchildren living below the poverty line.
• Instead, per the U.S. Department of Agriculture above, there are 32 million schoolkids getting government-subsidized lunches; in other words, a whopping 65% of all schoolkids get free or low-cost lunch from the federal government.

In the absence of school-lunch programs (and school-breakfast programs, and even school-dinner programs), the vast majority of those kids would not starve; they would get their meals form their parents, as I did. Mom somehow managed to give me adequate lunches (often leftovers from yesterday's dinner, generally delicious; or else baloney and butter sandwiches, equally fine)... despite the fact that she was a working, single mother, as my parents were divorced when I was two years old. But as Michelle Obama says, "We can’t just leave [what kids eat] up to the parents."

Of course not; it takes a village to give a kid a sandwich. A federal village, at that!

Today's announcement from the AgDept is simply the fulfillment of Mrs. Obama's glorious progressivist crusade -- can we use that warlike word in this era of nicey-nice rhetoric? -- to "subsidize and regulate what children eat before school, at lunch, after school, and during summer vacations in federally funded school-based feeding programs."

We discussed this monstrosity at length in Food for Abuse, posted last December; I commend that article to your attention again.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 14, 2011, at the time of 6:54 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4756

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at January 14, 2011 10:28 PM

Post a comment

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved