Now, many of you may chortle and scoff at his legislation banning the use of fluff in the public schools. But as a parent, I can tell you that I was appalled to find out they’re serving that crap to kids in school lunches. That stuff is pure, unadulterated evil. School lunches, remember, were intended to insure that kids who might not otherwise have access to good nutrition, got at least one decent meal a day. Admittedly, school lunches have never lived up to that worthy goal as intended, and sometimes push the boundaries on what can be considered “edible,” but serving this kind of stuff is appalling, and completely contrary to the purpose of school lunches in the first place. Now, some (Ernie Boch, for example, see his diary earlier), think this is just a crude publicity stunt. Maybe so. But sometimes crude publicity stunts are how you bring attention to a serious issue. And sometimes it’s the only way to do so because the issue hasn’t been addressed in other fora. Even if none of those things are true in this case (and I happen to think Jarrett has a great deal of integrity and if he’s doing something, it’s because he means it), Jarrett sends an important message: someone cares about the crap our kids are being fed. Someone is standing up for our kids. And that someone is a Democrat. Should Jarrett go beyond an attack on Fluff to a more general attack on the other stuff that’s poisoning our kids in the schools? Yes. But is this a start? Yes. And it sends the right message. In my opinion. Now pass the fluffernutter.
The voters already consider the Democrats has the creators of the “Nanny state.” I thought the press conference was incredibly misguided, and inappropriate. Of course, Mr. Barrios is unopposed, so why should he care about anyone but himself? It’s this kind of silly, any “cause of the day” crap that voters don’t trust. They want an adult to be governor, folks. They expect parent’s to decide whether or not their children should eat fluffernutters and they expect their elected officials to focus on real issues, like taxes, healthcare and believe it or not, illegal immigration.
<
p>
The election is not about “fluff” people – it’s about property tax relief. If you don’t want your kids eating fluff then get your sorry asses out of bed in the morning and make them something else. I hear Trader Joe’s has some great lunch ideas.
You are seriously arguing that our schools, funded by our taxes, should be shoveling this kind of crap on our kids? By this logic, we might just as well fire the cafeteria ladies and give the franchise to McDonalds. Or better yet, let’s just stop serving school lunches altogether, because if parents can’t get it together to make their kids’ lunches, why should government have to step in and take responsibility? Its those kids who should bear the burden of their parents’ failures, right? Jeez, talk about “your on your own economics.” This is precisely the attitude that’s left our schools in the sorry state they’re in now.
<
p>
I have a different view: I believe that WE are the government; I believe that WE have an obligation to PROTECT OUR CHILDREN regardless of the failures of their parents; I believe that OUR schools are the frontlines where that obligation is to be carried out; and I don’t believe that it is appropriate or excusable that WE are serving crap to our children. Finally, as I mentioned above, a little history: DEMOCRATS came up with the school lunch program SO THAT KIDS COULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE NUTRITIOUS MEAL A DAY. See the history of the school lunch program at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/ (sorry, don’t know how to do links). I don’t think that making sure we stay true to that goal is too much coddling or breeds dependency.
<
p>
As far as the “any cause of the day” argument, I agree that this should be part of a bigger campaign to get junk food out of schools and better nutrition in (and no, I don’t advocate the serving of tofu and bean sprouts, god help us all, if that’s what you were implying with the “Trader Joe’s” crack). I don’t agree that this is what Barrios is all about — he’s done a lot of good stuff on a lot of serious issues (for example, anti-gang stuff) that gets almost no press. It’s also not a zero-sum game — just because someone’s standing up against serving crap in schools doesn’t mean that we can’t also talk about property tax relief, health care and immigration.
and breathe the same air as the rest of us. This is not a burning issue for most voters and it’s silly. Your over-the-top histronics about this issue is why voters perceive the DEMs as not ready for the Governor’s office, and history does bear me out – we haven’t won the seat in years. Not every issue is “burn the house down” compelling, Jimbob, and this kind of hysterical over-response should be reserved for something other than quibbling over the interior of sandwiches. Furthermore, I never suggested that we should do away with the lunch program (another over-response) but I did suggest that if people don’t like it, they can get up and make their kid something else. This is further reasoning for this in the next paragraph.
<
p>
First of all – do you even have kids? If you do, you know know that the menus are posted a month in advance. That gives parents 30 opportunities to help their child make a good choice about food selections, because there are usally a couple, three options to choose from. If you don’t like the food choices, then you make an alternative at home. I don’t think this needs a state-level amendment, particularly when one understands that most accompanyments to peanut butter are also sugar laden and nutritionally deficient, and really intended to make sure that the peanut butter gets into the child. Bottomline? One man’s poision is another’s treasure.
<
p>
I think it’s time that everyone put their big-boy pants on and focused on what the voters care about, and that is property tax relief, healthcare, illegal immigration, the high cost of state universities and other concerns. The bit about Fluff is just well, fluff. The news media is having a field day with this silliness and it’s unfortunate. I wish Barrios had thought this through all the way to the end, because it plays so well into the “Nannygate” accusations that get hurled at Democrats. We don’t need this right now.
<
p>
‘Nuff said, Jimbob. Tell “Mary Ellen” I said “hello.”
I can see my house from there. And yes I have kids, and yes I pack lunches most days, and no, I rarely saw a menu 30 days in advance. But that wasn’t the point of the original post anyway: the point is that people feel that their kids and families are under siege from many pernicious influences, and adopting a “you’re on your own” approach to that cedes the ground to the wingnuts. O.K. I’m ready to move on now.
<
p>
But who the heck is “Mary Ellen”? I don’t get it.
Beverly Hillbillies.
It’s the Waltons.
Can’t seem to get my down-homey old-timey TV shows right! Wasn’t there a sister in Beverly Hillbillies? What was her name?
Elly May is from the Beverly Hillbillies. Not to be confused with the Beverly Healeys — a family of millionaires forced to live in the blighted neighborhood of Prides Crossing.
I see an excellent TV ad taking shape!
I’m a little new at this-here blogging thing, but isn’t use of phrases like “over the top histrionics” or “hysterics” or “time to put your big boy pants on” or “breathe the air like the rest of us” a little “over the top” as well? How about we agree that I’ll avoid the all-caps and try to refrain from exaggeration the next time we disagree on something (not that I think disagreement’s inevitable mind you), and you agree to refrain from the name-calling and condescension? [Boy, this is a great thing about blogs — you really do have all the time in the world for those snappy, or not-so-snappy, comebacks!]
Now that was a HIGH dudgeon.
<
p>
This issue, particularly treated in this way, strays well over the edge into unintentional self-parody. You even had a “Won’t somebody think of the children?”
<
p>
Appraoching this issue in this way (i) reinforces the notion that Democrats are anxious to control much of your life (what you can eat, whether you may drink soda or diet soda, whether you can drink or smoke, how you spend your money); (ii) reinforces the notion that Democrats are fundamentally unserious about governing,but are always ready to run hither and thither to fight the MAN; and (iii) generally makes them look like buffoons.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had that phrase applied to me before. I love it. O.K., so, maaaaybee, I was a liiittle sanctimonious in the above reply, but I still stand by my basic point — we Democrats have to show that we really are willing to “think of the children” because right now the right seems to have the monopoly on that, and their solutions are the opposite of protective of children or supportive of families, while giving the appearance of being so. I still think that Jarrett’s thing is good because it is actually trying to protect kids from crap. Apparently a few of you disagree….
It was the “pure, unadulterated evil” line, as if describing “The First” by Buffy fans, that made me think “high dudgeon.” (Is there ever a low dudgeon?)
<
p>
It can’t be pure unadulteraled evil: it was a staple without which I and many others would have had to eat Salisbury Steak mystery meats and soggy fish sticks far more often. That is, it is the alternate menu item, for those who do not like and do not want the primary menu item. The budget isn’t unlimited; the alternate is always going to be something along the lines of this or PB&J. Also, Fluff is as big a New England food institution as clam chowder.
<
p>
Anyway, I do disagree; I think the approach, which is now a laugh line on the national news, makes the larger issue, well described by you above –look frivolous.
It’s quite obvious that there is a simple cultural divide here. Barrios isn’t from Massachusetts. Anyone who was born and raised here would understand that Fluffernutters are more than just a sandwich, they are a staple!
a parent actually tell their child not to eat the sandwich and send in something else more to their liking. Lets legislate some more parental responsibilities.
Having been born in Boston (o.k., grew up in NJ, but we had Fluff there), I am second to none in my respect and admiration for the institution of Fluff and its derivatives, such as, for example, Fluffernutter. I will defend to the death, TO THE DEATH anyone’s right to eat it five times a day if they choose to do so. I just don’t want my taxpayer money being used to serve it to my and other people’s kids, when they could be serving something more nutritious.
serve something more nutritious, the fluffernutter is an alternate. Please, you are free to defend your child but leave the defense of my child to me… I can handle it, and she can have the fluffernutter once a week.
“Serving something more nutritious”? Name three things on a school menu that are significantly healthier than a fluffernutter. The everyday alternative in our schools is pizza. Taco tubs, fishwiches, chicken nuggets, and macaroni and cheese are all staples.
<
p>
If you want to make the point that our kids don’t eat particularly well on institutional food then I agree with you. But that’s not the point Barrios was making. He called 14 schools, found one that served fluffernutters, and called a press conference to anounce an amendment that legislates a single food item at his kid’s school. That’s got nothing to do with nutritional standards in Massachusetts schools and everything to do with putting Barrios on the six o’clock news.
The story I saw was that he found out about this because his kid got served the stuff, and that he is amending a bigger bill about keeping junk food out of schools.