<p>parent1986 - that is one of the best interviews that really demonstrates how the poor and the under represented are slaves to corporate interests.</p>
<p>I’m not a huge fan of the free or reduced lunch programs. It’s not that I want to see kids go hungry because their parents can’t afford food. I would hate to see that…but I don’t think that the situation is black and white like that.</p>
<p>The issue that I have with the programs is that lunch isn’t expensive and there are very few families who truly can’t afford to make their kids a lunch from home. A lot of kids will eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and those cost around $0.50. Add some extra item like chips or raisins and chocolate chips, maybe add $0.25. So you are looking at probably $0.75 a day for a lunch, which isn’t very much. So I don’t think it’s a cost issue - it’s an issue of having to make their kids lunch each day, which the parents who qualify for free lunches might not want to do.</p>
<p>I also live in a town where we had free lunches for all kids from 1-18 for a while. It is Monday through Friday only. So as a working parent, where both my wife and I work, we can’t participate because our kid is not home M-F. Why is the program not Saturday and Sunday as well? Who knows.</p>
<p>
You have it backward. There would be more poor and vulnerable because less people would have jobs. “Corporate America” isn’t a living, thinking entity unto itself. It’s nothing more than people working, making money and paying the taxes that support such programs. Where did you actually think money came from?</p>
<p>[Environmentalist</a> Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Tavis Smiley | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/environmental-advocate-robert-f-kennedy-jr/]Environmentalist”>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/environmental-advocate-robert-f-kennedy-jr/) </p>
<p>Yesterday, 11:29 PM #101
cartera45
Senior Member</p>
<p>“parent1986 - that is one of the best interviews that really demonstrates how the poor and the under represented are slaves to corporate interests.”</p>
<p>I agree, Cartera45 - Because he is a Kennedy and has no political aspirations, he has no reason to lie, IMO.</p>
<p>"It’s not that I want to see kids go hungry because their parents can’t afford food. I would hate to see that…but I don’t think that the situation is black and white like that.</p>
<p>The issue that I have with the programs is that lunch isn’t expensive and there are very few families who truly can’t afford to make their kids a lunch from home."Engineer For Life #10</p>
<p>I hope you use better critical thinking skills when you are a first responder or putting out a fire, engineer for life.</p>
<p>Do you really think the many homeless, many losing their homes to foreclosure, the many with overwhelming illness and medical bills, the unemployed, the disabled, etc. have a spare .75$ EVERYDAY to feed their children? Their one child. What if there are 5 children? Should an American have to decide which child is going to have to go hungry today.</p>
<p>How can you be so sure?</p>
<p>Since the issue is NOT whether to feed the hungry, why is that even being argued? The hungry and poor will continue to be fed. Period. As they should be. The question HERE is whether the non-poor should also be fed to spare the poor possible embarrassment.</p>
<p>
Of course he has reason to lie. He is being enriched by his activism. His whole “free electricity” thing was a good example.</p>
<p>Everybody lies to support their agenda. I don’t believe he was lying in this particular interview.</p>
<p>Kennedy is certifiable. All you have to do is listen to the last part of his interview where he says for 1.5 trillion we could replace all of our power generation with wind and solar which would provide free energy in perpetuity.</p>
<p>I play this type of stuff and discuss it with my kids so that they are able to recognize dangerous people.</p>
<p>That’s right, Cartera. Everybody lies to support their agenda. Mr. Kennedy is an activist and certainly does so. Which is why he is no more credible here than any other activist.</p>
<p>How much money would it take, in your opinion, dadx, and what are your qualifications to make that opinion?</p>
<p>[NOW</a>. Science & Health. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Biography | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/now/science/kennedy.html]NOW”>http://www.pbs.org/now/science/kennedy.html)</p>
<p>Just for the record Dadx, Kennedy is a senior attorney for the NRDC.</p>
<p>Yes he is, parent1986. You’ve made your point the NRDC is an advocacy group, an excellent one (I know because I’ve worked wit them very closely), and they don’t pretend to be other than an advocacy group.</p>
<p>engineer4life#102, I don’t know why my comment #106 indicated you are a fire fighter, other than that I am just waking up, and I watched an interview with a firefighter on the Daily Show last night.</p>
<p>Mr. Kennedy’s complete bio from the PBS show. Dadx, he sounds far from certifiable to me. </p>
<pre><code>Biography
</code></pre>
<p>NOW’s David Brancaccio talks with prominent environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Recently Kennedy was tested for mercury and learned that his blood level was nearly double the EPA’s safe limit. “The environmentalists are dismissed as tree huggers,” says Kennedy. “But there’s nothing radical about clean air and clean water for our children.” </p>
<p>Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Reputation As A Resolute Defender Of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions. Mr. Kennedy was named one of TIME magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his success helping Riverkeeper lead the fight to restore the Hudson River. The group’s achievement helped spawn more than 125 Waterkeeper organizations across the globe.</p>
<p>Mr. Kennedy serves as Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Chief Prosecuting Attorney for the Hudson Riverkeeper and President of Waterkeeper Alliance. He is also a Clinical Professor and Supervising Attorney at Pace University School of Law’s Environmental Litigation Clinic and is co-host of Ring of Fire on Air America Radio. Earlier in his career he served as Assistant District Attorney in New York City. He has worked on several political campaigns including the presidential campaigns of Edward M. Kennedy in 1980, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.</p>
<p>He has worked on environmental issues across the Americas and has assisted several indigenous tribes in Latin America and Canada in successfully negotiating treaties protecting traditional homelands. He is credited with leading the fight to protect New York City’s water supply. The New York City watershed agreement, which he negotiated on behalf of environmentalists and New York City watershed consumers, is regarded as an international model in stakeholder consensus negotiations and sustainable development. He helped lead the fight to turn back the anti-environmental legislation during the 104th Congress.</p>
<p>Among Mr. Kennedy’s published books are the NEW YORK TIMES’ bestseller CRIMES AGAINST NATURE (2004) THE RIVERKEEPERS (1997), and JUDGE FRANK M. JOHNSON, JR: A BIOGRAPHY (1977). His articles have appeared in THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, NEWSWEEK, ROLLING STONE, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, ESQUIRE, THE NATION, OUTSIDE MAGAZINE, THE VILLAGE VOICE, and many other publications. His award winning articles have been included in anthologies of AMERICA’S BEST CRIME WRITING, BEST POLITICAL WRITING and BEST SCIENCE WRITING.</p>
<p>Mr. Kennedy is a graduate of Harvard University. He studied at the London School of Economics and received his law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. Following graduation he attended Pace University School of Law, where he was awarded a Masters Degree in Environmental Law.</p>
<p>He is a licensed master falconer, and as often as possible he pursues a life-long enthusiasm for white-water paddling. He has organized and led several expeditions in Canada and Latin America, including first descents on three little known rivers in Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela. </p>
<p>More from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.:</p>
<p>Riverkeeper
“Crimes Against Nature,” ROLLING STONE, December 11, 2003
Natural Resources Defense Council
Protecting America’s Rivers
Every year American Rivers solicits nominations from thousands of river groups, environmental organizations, outdoor clubs, local governments, and taxpayer watchdogs for the America’s Most Endangered Rivers report. The ten most endangered rivers in 2004 are:</p>
<p>Colorado River
Big Sunflower River
Snake River
Tennessee River
Allegheny and Monogahela Rivers
Spokane River
Housatonic River
Peace River
Big Darby Creek
Mississippi River
You can find out more about preserving America’s rivers from the National Park Service’s Wild and Scenic River Program</p>
<p>I go by what he says. I have zero respect for this fellows ideas, and less for him.</p>
<p>I thought this was about school lunch programs and whether they should be expanded to force us to buy free lunch for everyone so that the needy needn’t be embarrassed…which I think is a bad idea. I prefer to waste my money myself, rather than have someone appointed or elected to waste it for me.</p>
<p>Mr. Kennedy is an advocate. An effective, articulate advocate, but an advocate nonetheless. His word is not gospel and it is not neutral.</p>
<p>[Food’s</a> New Foot Soldiers - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Food's New Foot Soldiers - The New York Times”>Food's New Foot Soldiers - The New York Times)</p>
<p>And what about this interesting tie-in from Bittman and the $2 Million being given to FoodCorps?</p>
<p>"Not to burst any bubbles, but let’s note that this in no way levels the playing field. That $2 million invested in FoodCorps — well conceived, raised with the best possible nonprofit intentions, and ultimately well spent (a bargain!) — was starkly contrasted last week with the $30 million that a new group of corporate farmers and ranchers intend to spend to promote the idea that they’re “committed to providing healthy choices.” </p>
<p>As anyone who’s followed the news in recent years knows, agribusiness has done pretty much the opposite, relying on direct federal subsidies (also our money) to the tune of at least $5 billion annually to produce precisely the kind of junk food that is largely responsible for the tripling of childhood obesity in the last 30 years.</p>
<p>I realize that the topic of this thread concerns changes in school lunch programs, but I do want to address the comment regarding Kennedy:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, Kennedy’s statement actually only addresses replacing carbon-generated power. From the transcript:</p>
<p>"…Once you build a wind or solar plant, it’s free energy forever. We have 500 gigawatts of carbon-generated power in this country. To replace them with wind and solar is about $1.5 trillion dollars.</p>
<p>That’s two years of oil exports, you know, of the export of U.S. cash to bring in oil. We can pay for a whole system that gives us free energy forever…"</p>
<p>When deciding how “dangerous” the person is, the reference to carbon power as opposed to “all” our power may be an important factor. Currently, carbon-powered plants account for only about 2/3 of all power generation in the U.S. ( [Electric</a> Power Monthly](<a href=“http://205.254.135.24/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html]Electric”>http://205.254.135.24/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html) )
Coal - 43.6 pct
Natural Gas - 21.7 pct
Petroleum - .8 pct</p>
<p>Nuclear, hydroelectric, and renewables such as geothermal, solar, and wind account for the other third of power generated. </p>
<p>So, is it “dangerous” to think that $1.5 trillion would be sufficient to replace the power generated by coal, natural gas, and petroleum plants with power from renewables?</p>
<p>Entergy, an energy company focused on nuclear power and, more or less, in competition with solar and wind power, makes this statement:</p>
<p>“To replace all of America’s coal-fired power plants with renewable sources of energy would cost nearly $1 trillion.” [Renewable</a> Energy Standard, RES | Entergy](<a href=“http://www.entergy.com/our_community/environment/renewable_energy_standard.aspx]Renewable”>http://www.entergy.com/our_community/environment/renewable_energy_standard.aspx)</p>
<p>So, a trillion for the 43.6 percent of power from coal. Add about half of that for the 22.5 percent from natural gas and petroleum and we get a plant replacement cost of just around … $1.5 trillion. The figure referenced by Kennedy.</p>
<p>So this “dangerous” man recognizes that there may be great, wise value in spending money now to eliminate a cost in the future. If you had the opportunity to make a one-time expenditure equal to the cost of all groceries placed in your refrigerator for two years and that one-time expenditure would mean that your refrigerator would be full of groceries for the rest of your life with no further cost outside of the maintenance of the refrigerator, would you consider that one-time expenditure to be a good investment? Or would you write it off as something “certifiable”?</p>
<p>Thanks, Illyria for the research.</p>