Wednesday, October 03, 2012

A Cappy Cap Competition

I will give the winner of this competition a copy of Worthless...unless you don't want "Worthless" which case I'll buy you whatever you want on Amazon as long as it's under $13.

Link this article to feminism.

You will be judged on thoroughness, CLARITY, logic...and all the other things American women hate (YUK YUK YUK)  just kidding.  But you will be judged on those things.

The competition starts NOW!


Unknown said...

I get it. Laura Walsh is a lazy, stay at home mom who is incapable of babysitting her own brat, so she's turned to the government as a babysitter. If you wanted your kid to eat healthier, then cook healthier food at home and don't make the government spend hundreds of thousands of dollars installing cameras to spy on people who choose not to eat the food offered at the school. It's simply unethical and unconstitutional in my humble opinion.

Plus that same lady is an another ugly, fat moron trying to justify being politically correct because she didn't know how to take proper care of her own body and is trying to force other people to eat healthier so she can continue to feel like an victim of the obesity epidemic in this country.

Here's another fat woman trying to justify her obesity.

Anonymous said...

I have to link this to the nanny state. It`s out of control. Imagine what Bloomberg will do in New York, when he hears about garbage cams. This will be Bloomberg`s wet dream.

Also, why do American schools even provide school lunches? Who came up with this idea? What ever happened to bringing your own lunch to school, in a brown paper bag. I say get rid of the entire school lunch program. These kids can make their own sandwich at home, and bring the sandwich to school. Schools are for education, they are not supposed to be in the restaurant business.

School lunch programs, only in America!

Anonymous said...

I believe this is one unintended consequence of the new Congress-approved school lunch calorie limits championed by Michelle Obama to fight obesity. We're getting a pretty good demonstration here of the value of one-size-fits-all government regulation and the waste it leads to.

I believe, as I'm sure most people who read this blog do, that the responsibility for feeding yourself and your child should be yours alone, not the school's or the government's. It may well be true that the kids who are throwing out their vegetables don't like them because they don't get them at home. Eating food bought from the grocery store and prepared at home is almost always cheaper and healthier. As Americans have relied increasingly on eating food not prepared at home (whether because it is a single parent household, or both parents work, or just a household where basic cooking and living skills were never learned), more and more people have become obese. This is just another example of trying to outsource parenting responsibilities.

And another (opposite) unintended consequence- this article where kids are protesting not having enough food in the new school lunches, and claiming they are still hungry. It's almost funny- I bet when Michelle Obama dreamed this up, she didn't expect that. Or this either:

"Across the state at St. Mark's Charter School in Colwich, Kansas, middle school students are protesting the new regulations… by bringing their lunches from home."


Unknown said...

"to study what students are tossing after officials found that most of the vegetables on the school menu end up in the trash can."

They want cameras to study for results they already have. Look in the dang trash. It's there. You need to watch it fly in for it to count? Pointless studies = Feminism.

Unknown said...

"to study what students are tossing after officials found that most of the vegetables on the school menu end up in the trash can."

They want cameras to study what they already know. Just look in the damn trash, you idiots. Pointless studies = feminism. to the radio said...

First we have to view feminism as crypto-communism.
The stated goals of feminism are not the real goals of feminism.
That is, the way in which feminism was sold to women is not the ultimate outcome of feminism.
It's about replacing capitalist society and it's foundation, the nuclear family, with communism and a state that removes the power of free will from it's citizens.
It was sold as freedom and it ends in slavery.

The following steps in point form:

-infiltrate academia, replace the foundation of the classical liberal arts with agit prop garbage packaged as 'studies',
-capitalize on the resentment some women may have felt after the Second World War that when they were no longer needed in the factories to make munitions it was time to go home and make babies and leverage the media and the entertainment industry to foster the perception that most women felt aggrieved,
-harness the new generation, baby boomers, in college by promoting free sex without consequences, courtesy of the pill, and the creeping credentialism that mandates ever more 'studies' type courses being incorporated into the curriculum of all professions, but specifically the teaching profession,
-increase the scope of the state, and bleed off ever more tax dollars from families, necessitating the creation of the working mother, and the two income family,
-capitalize on the increasing detachment of the 'you can have it all' working mother to encroach on authority of the nuclear family with incremental nanny statism,
-champion the 'it takes a village' meme over the 'it takes a mother and a father', further undermining the authority of parents to make their own decisions concerning the welfare of their children,
-condition the populace to acquiesce to ever more intrusions into their autonomy by pushing the envelope of polical correctness,
-convince enough people, particularly teachers and 'officials' who have been indoctrinated in the agit prop, credentialist stew that they have a responsibility to 'protect' the children from themselves,
-mandate 'healthy' school lunches that stay at home mothers used to feed their children,
-express astonishment that kids are 'wasting' the food they don't want to eat,
-institute a system of surveillance, while claiming the kids will be anonymous when monitored, to eventually institute a system of coercion and control,

So, feminism leads to the state, via school 'officials' convening meetings where they are paid to debate introducing measures that Orwell warned us about in 1948.
As well as giving us a glimpse into the Brave New World envisioned by Aldous Huxley.

Ironically, I read both of those books when I was a kid in grade school.
I wonder if they are still stocked in school libraries today.

Herr Wilson said...

Hmmm...Feminism destroyed the family unit, ensuring kids do not eat healthy meals at home. The solution? Let the government ensure kids eat healthy meals. But because the government fails at almost everything it failed at ensuring kids are eating healthy meals. The solution? More government in the form of cameras to ensure kids don't throw away their broccoli. This will fail too, though because the government fails at almost everything. Kids will just stash those nasty vegies in their backpacks and dispose of them later.

Rob said...

As said by others, its a pointless study to answer questions that any normal person could provide quickly and freely. Instead it will take several months and umpteen thousands of dollars for a report that spans multiple binders. Experts with degrees in nutritional sanitary psychology will be consulted. And despite all that hard work (hah!), chances are the study will reach a predetermined conclusion to affirm the that the Committee for Vegetarian Social Justice was right all along. Or if cooking the books is too much work, the 300 page insomnia cure will be ignored and never read.

Make-work projects = feminism. Official process over effectiveness = feminism. Credentialism and 'expert opinion' trumping the self-evident and obvious = feminism. Ignoring facts and trying to make reality conform to pet theories = feminism.

So the students 'have to take' the nutritional items, which just go onto the tray, get ignored and then tossed. A practical person would simply rescind the mandatory healthy dishes, so only food that will be consumed is dished up. An ambitious busybody would try to find a way to encourage the kids to eat the veggies with either bribes of dessert or sneaking it in to tasty food (eg. lettuce and tomatoes on a burger). Instead, the problem is analyzed to death instead of solved.

Going to ridiculous lengths to rationalize and justify poor decisions = feminism. Doubling down and refusing to admit to mistakes = feminism.

Trash-cams to record what is thrown away instead of just looking in the bag. It's not like they're dealing with, say, biohazardous medical waste and sharps in a hospital garbage can.

An aversion to getting your hands dirty = feminism.

School lunch programs in and of themselves reek of the nanny-state, and is a facet of the push to outsource parenting. A capitalist could make an argument about economies of scale and making it more affordable for poor families to provide lunches for their kids while still turning a profit on the whole arrangement. A pragmatic utilitarian might say that taxpayer money had best be spent wisely on moderately healthy food the kids will actually eat. But fiscal prudence and effective charity both seem to take a back seat to the crusade of micromanaging what other people eat.

Abdicating parentage to 'professionals' = feminism. Forcing social engineering down people's throats because you know what's best for them = feminism.

Vegetables in the school menu... All well and good, but is there any meat on the menu? It may be comparing apples and oranges, but it reminds me of stories from male co-workers about their time in remote work camps. They tried to feed the guys on an uber-healthy vegetarian diet, and it was a disaster. The workers were hungry and had no energy even after cleaning their plates, trying to do heavy labor in the sub-arctic on a diet meant for suburban cubicle weenies. Are the kids actually getting the energy to function and learn?

Trying to change men (of any age) = feminism. Unwittingly sabotaging your, shall we say 'infrastructure', while you tinker and experiment = feminism.

tspoon said...

I can only see an indirect link to feminism, with the behaviour in this article serving as a metaphor for how all people except bitter ideologues behave under feminist rule (and most other kinds of rule). They go up to the counter, they take their (mandated) serving, they go back to the table, pick through and eat what they wish to. They then take their plate with all they did not wish to consume, never asked for but were forced to take, to the nearest place of disposal, and trash it, while no one observes.

If asked, many will be able to parrot the approved mantra that it is important to have a balanced diet. Perhaps one or two of the more unruly males may say veges are crap, stop feeding me crap. They will of course be immediately assigned to the re-education facility....