I've Moved!

You can now catch the blog over at http://morningsnarkreport.wordpress.com/. Thanks for all the love snarkers!!

Give 'Em a Head Start

So if you follow the facebook page you probably saw how a Richmond preschool program has banned students from bringing sack lunches unless they have a doctor's note deeming said lunch necessary. From what I gather, the expense of feeding each and every preschooler in this program will be covered by federal dollars -- federal dollars which I'm sure could be better spent elsewhere, like paying for another teacher or at minimum teacher's aid, or provide supplies to classrooms. I know, I'm just a silly stay at home mom whose child is not yet in preschool, so what do I know?

I know that first off, the fact that they're taking away the choice of the parent what to feed their child is ridiculous. By mandating and acting like they're going to provide a much more nutritious and filling lunch for the kids is just silly. We all saw how well Michelle's school lunch program went over -- kids were left still hungry and school districts had wasted much needed money. I'm sure that we can all remember times when we were in school and how hard it was to pay attention when you were starving. And I remember when I was little, my mom always made sure we had plenty to eat in our lunchboxes -- the basic minimum was a sandwich, a drink, and two snacks, sometimes she'd add a thermos of soup or a salad or whatever to switch it up. Yes, we had lunchables from time to time and we were usually allowed to buy lunch no more than twice a week until we got older. I enjoyed bringing my lunch honestly because it meant that I didn't have to stand on line and wait to eat and have less time to eat -- which again should be considered in if our children are left hungry. The less time they have to eat, the less they do eat, and hungry kids (and adults) are definitely no fun to be around. So these preschoolers, how much time do they really get to eat? I know B takes his sweet time to eat and I don't see it getting any better. Or what about the kids who are so used to grazing throughout the day and suddenly they have a set eating schedule? Are they getting enough to eat, or are they refusing food because at that point in time they're not hungry? Or do those who know better never took this into consideration?

So, with the choice of bag or buy no longer yours (unless you go through the hassle of getting a doctor's note, and to be honest, I'd probably beg our pediatrician to sign off on something even though B doesn't have food sensitivities or allergies), it also throws out the choice of what your child gets to eat. To be quite honest, after seeing what the government allows people to get on food stamps, I'm not going to exactly be thrilled with what they're going to serve in the cafeteria most days. I posted a while back what Rambling Mom said her preschooler was given for lunch but in case you missed it, it was a piece of fried mozzarella, a couple of carrots and a few pieces of broccoli. So not only do I feel that the kids are clearly not getting enough to eat with this "lunch" but the quality sucks too. I really don't care if the mozzarella is baked and not truly fried, it's just something that I'd prefer my kid not to eat. I mean I'm sure the turkey & gravy that we all loved on Thursdays growing up wasn't premium turkey, it probably was a lot better than a freakin' mozzarella stick! It makes me wonder how many parents are like, seriously, this is the crap you feed my kid?

Finally, let's talk about the real push here. With Ocrapcare looming and being forced upon the masses to further establish that you need government to survive, this only starts kids off early thinking that the government shall always provide for you. I'm not naïve enough to think that growing up in our cushy middle class neighborhood some of my classmates qualified for free lunch. While I totally understand providing for those who absolutely and truly need it, we never actually knew who those kids were so there wasn't a stigma surrounding it. No one starved, and I'm sure that if a kid had truly needed a lunch a teacher or someone would have come through and made sure that kid ate. The kindness of those who aren't being forced to provide always seems to be much greater than when forced and mandated. But having government money provide free meals to all preschoolers just seems like an agenda push to me -- if a family can afford to pay for their kid's lunch, or would just rather pack their kid's lunch then so be it. Like I said, that money could easily be distributed to other areas that need it more than this program. Sadly, cynical me thinks that most parents would be stoked for their kid to receive this "free" lunch and just let it slide -- and let it progress into the upper grades and further engrain the theory of "government will always provide" even if the government can't afford to provide.

Unmotivated Monday

I'm exhausted, no other way to put it. We went away for the weekend and had a blast and I'm just exhausted. I still haven't seen the 60 Minutes piece on Benghazi and from what I've read it was good but to be quite honest, I'm still hesitant about it. I'm also laughing over the fact that the Marines were going to change their headgear into something seriously hideous. These people that the administration are making sure are getting to be the top brass just need the boot because they don't appreciate tradition and the understanding that you don't mess with things that aren't broken in the name of political correctness. Oh and who is shocked that Michelle's old college classmate is the one who got the no-bid contract for the Ocrapcare website. Dear people, are you fed up yet? Ok, I'm needed by my munchkin. Sorry this was so short, I'll try to do a headline scan while he naps and then get my snark on.

Easier Said

So I have a few moments alone because hubby was miraculously given a three day pass, did my hair and makeup without my little two year old tyrant demanding something or other from his ever so loyal momma, and I started the usual round of reading. Today's tirade will be short and sweet as I'm using the iPad, but it ties into yesterday's. Here's the article that has me rolling my eyes this morning.

Russell Brand, Russell Brand, Russell Brand. Dearest I hope you've been busy redistributing your personal wealth amongst the masses and that's why you cannot bloody we'll buy a proper shirt (let alone outfit), haircut and a shave. Somehow I doubt that and you present yourself as this "free spirit" type. While you gave this interview to the BBC, that somewhat makes me roll my eyes a bit less, however knowing that you still manage to come stateside and are supposedly big in the Hollywood circles (I don't get it as I don't find you funny, attractive or appealing) this might rub some Yanks the wrong way -- and perhaps some of your super rich LA pals. For me personally, it's hard to begrudge someone who has worked their way up in the ranks and made it big and have done well for themselves -- that is after all the American dream, no? While I don't agree that entertainers (actors, athletes, etc) should get paid in the extraordinary ways they do, it is what it is -- and if they pay their taxes, what I do care what they do with their money? It's their money. This whole notion of redistribution of wealth is absurd to me because I'm one of those odd Americans who believes that you work for what you earn. Granted I had everything I could ever want growing up, but since I became an adult and moved out on my own, eventually got married and had a kid I understand how hard my parents worked to give me an easy life. If we keep giving out welfare and begin to redistribute wealth and heavily tax corporations, I don't think our economy will ever be great again. We will forever be stuck in this rut and after a while, those who work hard for everything they have will just stop working because what's the point?

We need to move away from relying heavily on the government and downsize them before the rest of the country is downsized. We need to get back to basics on so many levels and realize that if we want to be a great nation again, to once again be a super power we cannot continue on this path. This national wasn't founded on socialist principles and it would serve those in DC well to remember that.

It Was a Late Night...

...and it was totally worth it to see my Sox win the first game of the World Series. I had to catch up on some stuff before I got to this and now I'm doing this I'm all hmmmmmm what to snark about today? It's sort of hard to snark when it's glorious out and I can move my work outside and let B run around our yard with the pup, listening to the sounds of heavy artillery in the distance. One thing is certain, I love the sound of artillery and helicopters flying overhead -- especially at night. It might be weird to some people but I compare it to when I was at college and lived in my sorority house, my room was street level and the road it was on was the main road from downtown to the hospital. You just get used to it and it becomes oddly comforting. Anyway...

Ok, a quick glance at The Blaze and I've got it! This totally gave me a chuckle, Hollywood is now concerned about the government spying on people. Not that I fully believe that they'll blame their pal O, I'm sure they'll just say that he has to do it because George W made him or something. The fact is, I generally roll my eyes when Hollywood steps out for a cause of any kind -- and then when they step into politics they end up just seeming silly. Point in case: Ashley Judd. Goodness. I'd sooner keep Mitch then ever trust her to look out for the best interest of my home state. And I love how her grandmother even said that she was skeptical of Ashley running and thought Mitch was just doing a fine job. Having someone who is anti-coal isn't beneficial for Kentucky, but she's Ashley Judd, clearly she knows what's best. I just roll my eyes too at the possibility of Ben Affleck running for a seat in Massachusetts. When push comes to shove, honestly, how well do these celebrities relate to every day people? I have a hard time believe that some of them can (Kimye, I'm staring you and your pals the Carters down) and will ultimately understand what is best for the people they represent. And what happens when voters get starstruck by celebrities running for office, will it be a fair fight of voting on the issues, or just because the candidate did some high grossing film or television show and is a household name? Sure we treat candidates like rock stars these days, look at Barry, but I think by doing so is to the detriment of the people. Sigh. I've totally gone off on a tangent and now hubby is home, so off to lunch.

Short and Sweet

I didn't sleep much, my kiddo was cranky up until he demanded that he needed to be cleaned up and therefore take a bath and now he's just running around like a crazy person. So here's what it is...

Seriously, for all those who whine and cry and think that I'm mean (because you never say it, but I know that there is one person out there who probably thinks I hate poor people, which in turn makes me laugh because I am one of the poor people) but I'm going to start lobbying all these politicians to target food stamps after Ocrapcare. Why? Because I'm sick of seeing stories like this. I honestly understand the people who work their asses off -- sometimes in multiple jobs -- and still make peanuts and are just trying to do everything they can to support their family, I get that and think that as long as these people aren't abusing the system let them have their food stamps. But the others? Drug test, make them come in person with a legitimate federal ID to prove that they are a legal citizen and are searching for work, etc in order to try to stem fraud. And if they're busted once, no more. If they can't get off the system within a certain time period, bye! I'm over tax dollars being handed out like kitkats on Halloween. If this could totally be privatized and organized by non-profits working with major brands (ie ConAgra, Kraft, etc) to do a supplement program, I bet it would run more efficiently and be a better value for all those involved. Just a thought.

The Tale of Vicarious Parents... Or Something Like That

These are the days of frivolous lawsuits and people blubbering about being bullied and parents who hover over their kids constantly but yet try to be their best friend. So what does all this have in common? Well, minus the lawsuit (which cynical me thinks is honestly in the works if this parent doesn't get the results they want), it has a lot to do with high school football. Reports came out that a parent filed a bully complaint on a school's website over a high school football game after the parent felt that the losing team was bullied. Say what? Given the trash talk climate of the NFL and even college level, you've got to roll your eyes. I did when I saw this and when I read the article my eyes were super sore. I know that the trend in sports for youngsters (like B's age group) is a "mercy" rule which I hate because I think it just teaches kids to be poor losers. Ok, so I get that this high school game was a crazy large defeat (91-0), but the coaches of the winning team did everything they could within regulations to try to make it not well a total destruction. In fact, the coach of the losing team even stated in the article: "I think the game was handled fine...They’re No. 1 for a reason, and I know coach Buchanan." Pretty classy from the coach whose team had a huge loss. He could have whined about it and pitched a fit and acted like a jerk but he didn't, and I'm sure that he talked with his team and they were bummed but probably held their heads up high and just let it go to focus on their next game.

What gets me is, if the coach didn't have an issue with it (and I'm sure if he did, then he would've taken it up with the officials and the opposing team's coaching staff at the game) then what right does this parent have to go onto the school's website and fill out a bullying complaint? What the hell does that accomplish and teach the kids? Nothing. It just reinforces the notion of "I'm entitled to feel good and get my way and if I don't, I'll just complain and make someone else deal with it" that has become so rampant. And if it was done on behalf of their child, well son buck up. I know, I'm one of those mean parents who doesn't believe in letting your kid win Candy Land to avoid a meltdown. Like I said earlier, kids need to learn how to be good losers -- we've seen what happens when they can't be good losers (or even good compromisers). If we keep allowing the bully card to be played when it's not actual bullying (and quite honestly, I'm over the whole bullying "phenomenon") then it will be harder to take real cases seriously (umm does no one teach "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" anymore?). If we keep telling kids that it's ok to throw tantrums when you don't get your way, even clear into adulthood, then we're doomed as a nation even more than I thought.

Good for these coaches for not making a huge deal over this game and for treating it as just that, a game and not an end of the world scenario -- especially in Texas where football no matter what level is the end all, be all.