Utah School Threw Out Students’ Lunches Because They Were In Debt

TANSTAAFLVia Think Progress:

A Utah school’s child nutrition manager threw out the lunches of about 40 elementary school students this week after the kids’ parents fell behind on payment.

Some parents at Uintah Elementary in Salt Lake City say they didn’t even realize they were indebted to the school. The school apparently made calls Monday and Tuesday telling some parents that there was a balance on their accounts, and the children of those who had missed the call were the ones whose lunches got thrown out.

…The children were given milk and fruit instead of a full lunch — the meal that the school says it gives any child who isn’t able to pay.

“So she took my lunch away and said, ‘Go get a milk,’ ” recalled one student, a fifth grader named Sophia. “I came back and asked, ‘What’s going on?’ Then she handed me an orange. She said, ‘You don’t have any money in your account so you can’t get lunch.’”

Parents were outraged by the move, calling it “traumatic and humiliating.”

There is no such thing as a free lunch. As any libertarian or right-winger can tell you.

More info:
Lunches seized from kids in debt at Salt Lake City elementary

  1. #1 by brewski on January 30, 2014 - 12:54 pm

    It’s the government. You know, the ones you want to trust with your healthcare.

  2. #2 by cav on January 30, 2014 - 2:29 pm

    I could have sworn it was the ‘Mean and Stupid’. Now who would suggest a correlation? With the line of command extending all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Perhaps beyond.

    Not likely, that would be denying our exceptionalism.

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on January 30, 2014 - 7:11 pm

    Could this be due to people losing their unemployment insurance? Maybe the kids can start to squeeze blood out of a turnip when the fruit and milk run out.

    When the turnips run out, who knows.

    Greatest country on the face of the earth! God bless us!

  4. #4 by brewski on January 30, 2014 - 10:28 pm

    Just think, the same people who pulled the lunches out of the hands of the 7 year old kids will now be deciding if you get that life saving treatment.

    • #5 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2014 - 8:46 am

      Funny how, when Sarah Palin invented the phony “death panel,” nothing was said about private for-profit insurance companies condemning Americans to death.

      • #6 by brewski on January 31, 2014 - 8:58 am

        and this has to do with what exactly?

        • #7 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2014 - 9:40 am

          You just brought up “death panels.” Pretty much out of the blue, because Utah lunch ladies are not administering health care as far as I know.

          • #8 by brewski on January 31, 2014 - 9:50 am

            I didn’t bring up death panels. You did. I pointed out that you want government to provide your health care who will be same people who snatch lunches from little children. You really can’t read, can you?

          • #9 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2014 - 11:08 am

            You know perfectly well that private for-profit insurance companies make life-and-death decisions all the time. I would rather trust Medicare, which works for us rather than wealthy investors.

          • #10 by brewski on January 31, 2014 - 11:47 am

            So you “trust” the people who snatch lunches out of the hands of children?

            Remember, this is your top post. These are your people.

          • #11 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2014 - 5:46 pm

            Did I miss the decision to put Utah cafeteria cashiers in charge of the Medicare program?

          • #12 by brewski on January 31, 2014 - 5:56 pm

            You seemed to have missed that the government workers at the schools, the DMV, the VA, the IRS all suck.

          • #13 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2014 - 9:03 am

            Your answer is what? Anarcho-capitalism?

          • #14 by cav on February 2, 2014 - 9:19 am

            Embrace the suck!

          • #15 by brewski on February 2, 2014 - 5:15 pm

            Thank you for admitting your Statism.

            The alternative is choice, liberty, freedom, individual sovereignty….

          • #16 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2014 - 7:54 pm

            …Somalia. No government, every man a king. :-(

          • #17 by brewski on February 2, 2014 - 8:01 pm

            Thank you for admitting that you don’t see any alternative between your preferred Totalitarianism Authoritarianism and Anarchy. You have quite a limited mind.

          • #18 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2014 - 8:26 am

            Explain “individual sovereignty” please. How is that different from anarchy?

          • #19 by brewski on February 3, 2014 - 9:08 am

            Read John Locke, the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Arbroath, and other works from the Enlightenment and classical liberalism and then get back to me. I didn’t realize you were so unread.

          • #20 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2014 - 1:07 pm

            I just Googled “individual sovereignty.” John Locke didn’t come up, but a bunch of nutty right-wing websites did.

          • #21 by brewski on February 3, 2014 - 2:52 pm

            John Locke (1632-1704) presents an intriguing figure in the history of political philosophy whose brilliance of exposition and breadth of scholarly activity remains profoundly influential.

            Locke proposed a radical conception of political philosophy deduced from the principle of self-ownership and the corollary right to own property, which in turn is based on his famous claim that a man earns ownership over a resource when he mixes his labour with it. Government, he argued, should be limited to securing the life and property of its citizens, and is only necessary because in an ideal, anarchic state of nature, various problems arise that would make life more insecure than under the protection of a minimal state. Locke is also renown for his writings on toleration in which he espoused the right to freedom of conscience and religion (except when religion was deemed intolerant!), and for his cogent criticism of hereditary monarchy and patriarchalism. After his death, his mature political philosophy leant support to the British Whig party and its principles, to the Age of Enlightenment, and to the development of the separation of the State and Church in the American Constitution as well as to the rise of human rights theories in the Twentieth Century.

          • #22 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2014 - 6:43 pm

            I read Locke at Georgetown University 40 years ago. But you haven’t answered my question.

          • #23 by brewski on February 3, 2014 - 7:24 pm

            Sounds like you need to read it again.

            Yes I have.

          • #24 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2014 - 8:43 pm

            Locke said nothing about “individual sovereignty,” that was a later invention. It’s a nice theory, but I would not recommend relying on it during a traffic stop. ;-)

          • #25 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 8:04 am

            You seem to be confusing my use of the word sovereignty for a meaning that I am not implying. I mean it in the sense that each individual owns his own labor, owns the fruits of his labor, cannot be told by someone else what to do, is not controlled by any laird, chieftain, dictator or kommissar where to live or what to do. This is not any crackpot legal theory. This is the philosophy of the Enlightenment and underlies the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Arbroath, Presbyterianism, and the American ethos. You seem to favor some subrogation of all personal Authority to the All Powerful Glorious Leaders who can tell every individual what to do. We’ve tried that and it doesn’t work.

          • #26 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2014 - 8:11 am

            Remember you’re talking to a former libertarian. I know the philosophy. I know about the “virtue of selfishness.” But since my undergrad days I’ve learned that Ayn Rand wasn’t just a bad novelist, her world view isn’t realistic. Which is more than Alan Greenspan and Rand Paul have learned!

            Oh, and thanks for citing the Declaration of Arbroath. Turns out it’s nothing to do with Middle Earth, but also “not a statement of popular sovereignty.”

          • #27 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2014 - 8:41 am

            In Middle Earth it’s Argonath.

            Two mighty statues, carved in the likenesses of Isildur and Anárion, that guarded the passage of the Great River Anduin. They marked the ancient northern border of Gondor.

            We do not know exactly when the Argonath were constructed, but the available evidence points to the middle of the thirteenth century of the Third Age. This would probably have been during the reign of Narmacil I, though they would have been built under the direction of his Regent Minalcar (who later ruled Gondor in his own right as Rómendacil II).

          • #28 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 8:58 am

            “It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”
            Declaration of Arbroath, 1320

          • #29 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 9:01 am

            If you know the philosophy then why do you keep asking me about it as though you have no idea what I am talking about?

            What caused you to reject freedom and embrace Authoritarianism? I’m curious.

          • #30 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 9:02 am

            I have no clue what Middle Earth has to do with anything.

          • #31 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2014 - 7:08 pm

            The Argonath has as much to do with school lunches as the Arbroath, which is an obscure footnote from the history of Scotland.

          • #32 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 8:02 pm

            It is actually not since we owe Scotland for what is much of American democracy and culture.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World

            Didn’t they teach you that at Georgetown or were you too busy worshipping Castro?

          • #33 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 8:48 pm

            Francis Hutcheson
            David Hume
            Adam Smith
            Thomas Reid
            Adam Ferguson

          • #34 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2014 - 8:52 pm

            Scotland is a nice place to visit, even if they do drive on the wrong side of the road. I’ve actually visited the Culloden battlefield. But your own link says most Scottish immigrants in America during our Revolution sided with the British.

            And again, the subject is school lunches.

          • #35 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 9:54 pm

            I’ve been to Culloden too.

            Depends on which Scots you are talking about in the Revolutionary War. The Ulster Scots were definitely anti-British.

            “If defeated everywhere else, I will make my stand for liberty among the Scots-Irish of my native Virginia”.
            General George Washington

            “The Scots-Irish were the first to proclaim for freedom of these United States; even before Lexington, Scots-Irish blood had been shed for American freedom. In the forefront of every battle was seen their burnished mail and in the retreat was heard their voice of constancy”.
            President William McKinley

            General Robert E. Lee was once asked this question: “What race of people do you believe make the best soldiers?” His reply: “The Scots who came to this country by way of Ireland”.

          • #36 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2014 - 7:13 am

            Well, the Irish immigrants to America are different. It’s hard to keep track of your morphing arguments.

            The subject is school lunches, by the way.

          • #37 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 10:23 am

            I’m not talking about the Irish. I’m talking about the Scots-Irish who were an entirely different group, different culture, different language, different religion, different history, different time.

          • #38 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2014 - 11:01 am

            And I’m talking about school lunches. ;-)

  5. #39 by Larry Bergan on January 31, 2014 - 5:37 pm

    This is a horrible system. Children can be cruel and I can just imagine the kids who have a full lunch making fun of the ones who don’t.

    This country throws as much food away as it eats.

  6. #40 by Nathan Erkkila on February 1, 2014 - 4:56 pm

    brewski :

    I didn’t bring up death panels. You did. I pointed out that you want government to provide your health care who will be same people who snatch lunches from little children. You really can’t read, can you?

    Government providing healthcare? That’s a fucking joke.

  7. #42 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2014 - 3:44 pm

    • #43 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2014 - 4:09 pm

      I’m trying to figure things out here.

      As a very young child, my mother packed a sack lunch or a corporate lunch box with food in it provided by my mother in the fifties. When I got older, the food was provided at the school, and all the children had the same choices for the food that was provided.

      I have a vivid memory of showing up with a sack lunch with a banana which my mother put together. I had never seen any other kid with a banana in his lunch and I was horrified that I might be ridiculed by the others, so I hid the banana in the sack as I ate something that only an ape would eat.

      True story.

      Life is funny, but sometimes less funny.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: