A few odd stories have surfaced in the news recently which caught my attention, all involving the feeding of the homeless.
Evidently there is a movement underway by local governments to curb donations of food supplies to soup kitchens.
At first I dismissed it as an obscure story, but when I saw it recur in different places including New York, Philadelphia, Dallas, Nashville, and elsewhere, I knew something was underfoot.
Local departments of health have become concerned about the dietary requirements of the homeless and want to control their salt, sugar, fat and fiber intake.
Their analysis of the soup kitchens contends the homeless are not getting the proper nutrition and, consequently, the Health Nazis have passed legislation prohibiting food donations thereby forcing a lot of kitchens to close their doors and turn the homeless away from their establishments.
Charitable organizations who have historically provided free food to kitchens are stumped by the legislation, including churches, synagogues, scouting, and other groups.
Government do-gooders think they know better and want to expand the Nanny state by dictating the food to be distributed.
This of course represents another instance of government expanding into our lives.
Inevitably, a new layer of bureaucracy will be created to oversee soup kitchen operations and provide the necessary food, all at the expense of the taxpayers.
Frankly, the general public is perplexed why the government is getting involved in this matter as it was funded by donations by people who see it as their civic duty to help those less fortunate than themselves.
Instead of thanking them for their contributions though, the government appears bent on complicating their lives by mandating how they will help.
In other words, the homeless have become pawns in government expansion.
This caused me to wonder, if I go to a restaurant and offer a friend a bite of my sandwich, would I be in violation of the law? Probably as I didn't first check his socio-economic status and the nutritional content of the sandwich which undoubtedly will not be up to government code.
Frankly, this is another fine example of Parkinson's law in government whereby, "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.
" In other words, they are expanding their duties and responsibilities simply to look busy and responsible.
In reality, they should just butt-out.
The homeless probably eat better at the soup kitchens than before they were homeless.
All of this is just as ridiculous as another report I read from the United Kingdom whereby grade schools there have adopted programs prohibiting children from having best friends.
Instead, they must all play together as a group.
The intent is to prohibit the emotional distress of losing a friend in the event a child moves away or goes to another class.
I understand a lot of English parents are becoming "emotionally distressed" themselves over the knuckleheads running the schools over there.
Don't you just love government sanctioned Socialism?
Evidently there is a movement underway by local governments to curb donations of food supplies to soup kitchens.
At first I dismissed it as an obscure story, but when I saw it recur in different places including New York, Philadelphia, Dallas, Nashville, and elsewhere, I knew something was underfoot.
Local departments of health have become concerned about the dietary requirements of the homeless and want to control their salt, sugar, fat and fiber intake.
Their analysis of the soup kitchens contends the homeless are not getting the proper nutrition and, consequently, the Health Nazis have passed legislation prohibiting food donations thereby forcing a lot of kitchens to close their doors and turn the homeless away from their establishments.
Charitable organizations who have historically provided free food to kitchens are stumped by the legislation, including churches, synagogues, scouting, and other groups.
Government do-gooders think they know better and want to expand the Nanny state by dictating the food to be distributed.
This of course represents another instance of government expanding into our lives.
Inevitably, a new layer of bureaucracy will be created to oversee soup kitchen operations and provide the necessary food, all at the expense of the taxpayers.
Frankly, the general public is perplexed why the government is getting involved in this matter as it was funded by donations by people who see it as their civic duty to help those less fortunate than themselves.
Instead of thanking them for their contributions though, the government appears bent on complicating their lives by mandating how they will help.
In other words, the homeless have become pawns in government expansion.
This caused me to wonder, if I go to a restaurant and offer a friend a bite of my sandwich, would I be in violation of the law? Probably as I didn't first check his socio-economic status and the nutritional content of the sandwich which undoubtedly will not be up to government code.
Frankly, this is another fine example of Parkinson's law in government whereby, "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.
" In other words, they are expanding their duties and responsibilities simply to look busy and responsible.
In reality, they should just butt-out.
The homeless probably eat better at the soup kitchens than before they were homeless.
All of this is just as ridiculous as another report I read from the United Kingdom whereby grade schools there have adopted programs prohibiting children from having best friends.
Instead, they must all play together as a group.
The intent is to prohibit the emotional distress of losing a friend in the event a child moves away or goes to another class.
I understand a lot of English parents are becoming "emotionally distressed" themselves over the knuckleheads running the schools over there.
Don't you just love government sanctioned Socialism?
SHARE
