truesee's Blog

A Little Village Academy student cringes at an enchilada dish served at his school. Many students throw away their entrees uneaten and say they would rather bring food from home. The school, though, does not allow students to bring in their own lunches, unless they have a medical condition or a food allergy. (Monica Eng, Chicago Tribune / February 17, 2011)

Monica Eng and Joel Hood, Tribune reporters

3:42 a.m. CDT, April 11, 2011

ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410

Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.

"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.

Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"

Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"

At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.

A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.

"While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom."

Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.

"Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something."

"(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't."

But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.

"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices.

"This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry.

"Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like.

"We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk," education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach wrote in an email. Her son attends Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview. "Not only would mandatory school lunches worsen the dietary quality of most kids' lunches at Nettelhorst, but it would also cost more out of pocket to most parents! There is no chance the parents would stand for that."

Many Little Village students claim that, given the opportunity, they would make sound choices.

"They're afraid that we'll all bring in greasy food instead of healthy food and it won't be as good as what they give us at school," said student Yesenia Gutierrez. "It's really lame. If we could bring in our own lunches, everyone knows what they'd bring. For example, the vegetarians could bring in their own veggie food."

"I would bring a sandwich or a Subway and maybe a juice," said seventh-grader Ashley Valdez.

Second-grader Gerardo Ramos said, "I would bring a banana, orange and some grapes."

"I would bring a juice and like a sandwich," said fourth-grader Eric Sanchez.

"Sometimes I would bring the healthy stuff," second-grader Julian Ruiz said, "but sometimes I would bring Lunchables."

Uncovered: New $2 billion bailout in Obamacare

Investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee have discovered that a little-known provision in the national health care law has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees.  At the current rate of payment, the $5 billion appropriated for the program could be exhausted well before it is set to expire.

The discovery came on the eve of an oversight hearing focused on the workings of an obscure agency known as CCIO -- the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.  CCIO, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees the implementation of Section 1102 of the Affordable Care Act, which created something called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.  The legislation called for the program to spend a total of $5 billion, beginning in June 2010 -- shortly after Obamacare was passed -- and ending on January 1, 2014, as the system of national health care exchanges was scheduled to go into effect.

The idea was to subsidize unions, states, and companies that had made commitments to provide health insurance for workers who retired early --  between the ages of 55 and 64, before they were eligible for Medicare. According to a new report prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services, "People in the early retiree age group…often face difficulties obtaining insurance in the individual market because of age or chronic conditions that make coverage unaffordable or inaccessible."  As a result, fewer and fewer organizations have been offering coverage to early retirees; the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program was designed to subsidize such coverage until the creation of Obamacare's health-care exchanges.

The program began making payouts on June 1, 2010.  Between that date and the end of 2010, it paid out about $535 million dollars.  But according to the new report, the rate of spending has since increased dramatically, to about $1.3 billion just for the first two and a half months of this year. At that rate, it could burn through the entire $5 billion appropriation as early as 2012.

Where is the money going?  According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086.  Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538.  General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818.  General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.

The program also paid large sums of money to state governments.  The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044.  Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.

But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined.  Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters.

Republican investigators count the early-retiree program among those that would never have become law had Democrats allowed more scrutiny of Obamacare at the time it was pushed through the House and Senate.  Since then, Republicans have kept an eye on the program but were not able to pry any information out of the administration until after the GOP won control of the House last November.  Now, finally, they are learning what's going on.

Jason Lanning

Bay News 9

Reporter
Last Updated: Monday, April 11, 2011

TAMPA -- 

A Tampa mother was arrested after physically expressing her concern about her son's grades.

According to the Tampa Police Department, 35-year-old Day-maris Vazquez was taken into custody on Sunday on child abuse charges.

Police said Vasquez hit her 12-year-old son with wooden and metal spatulas because he got an F on his report card.

Authorities said Vazquez broke the boy's glasses, choked him and threatened to kill him.

She remains in jail after bond was denied for her Monday morning.

Officials said she will remain in jail on an immigration hold.

 

She will have a chance to appeal her immigration hold, but not until the criminal charges against her are resolved, according to officials.

“It was smart for him to wait, because now he can use the Ryan plan as a benchmark,” says John Kenneth White, a political scientist at Catholic University in Washington. “He can say, ‘We’re not turning Medicare into a voucher system.’ ”

Sara Dedek, 26, charged with attacking two police officers and drug offenses. (Chicago Police Department / April 9, 2011)

Andy Grimm Tribune reporter

3:36 p.m. CDT, April 10, 2011

A 110-pound woman arrested on drug charges sent two female police officers to the hospital after scuffling with the officers inside the Monroe District police station on Saturday, authorities said.

Sara Dedek, 26, who is 5 feet, 4 inches tall with blond hair streaked with fluorescent pink dye, was charged Sunday with two counts of aggravated battery of a police officer.

Prosecutors said a female officer broke her ankle when Dedek shoved her down the stairs at the station, and Dedek injured the thumb of another officer who was attempting to restrain her from fleeing. The officers were moving Dedek from another part of the station after she had been searched, prosecutors said.

Dedek, of the 2400 block of North Springfield Avenue, had been arrested for possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia in the 700 block of West 14^th Street. A caller reported seeing Dedek and a man both inside a parked car "shooting up" a police report states, and the arresting officers found suspected heroin, a syringe and a can that had been cut to be  used in preparing and injecting drugs.

Judge Donald Panarese Jr. on Sunday ordered her held on $150,000 bond.

 

Walker/Getty

 

 

The White House stopped just short of dismissing Donald Trump as a clown Sunday - calling him a "sideshow" act with "zero chance" of becoming president.

FILE - In this March 31, 2011 file photo, Tyler Perry, recipient of the CinemaCon Visionary Award, arrives for the CinemaCon Big Screen Achievement Awards in Las Vegas. Perry delivered on a Christmas promise when he handed the keys of a new four-bedroom house to an 88-year-old woman who lost her rural Georgia home to a fire. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello, File)

2:01 p.m. Sunday, April 10, 2011

WICHITA, Kan. — In a courtroom in Wichita, the day begins much as it has for the past 49 years: Court is in session, U.S. District Judge Wesley Brown presiding. But what happens next is no longer routine; it's a testament to one man's sheer determination.

As lawyers and litigants wait in respectful silence, Brown, who is 103, carefully steers his power wheelchair behind the bench, his stooped frame almost disappearing behind its wooden bulk. He adjusts under his nose the plastic tubes from the oxygen tank lying next to the day's case documents. Then his voice rings out loud and firm to his law clerk, "Call your case."

Brown is the oldest working federal judge in the nation, one of four appointees by President Kennedy still on the bench. Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, and no one has taken that term more seriously than Brown.

"As a federal judge, I was appointed for life or good behavior, whichever I lose first," Brown quipped in an interview. How does he plan to leave the post? "Feet first," he says.

In a profession where advanced age isn't unusual — and, indeed, is valued as a source of judicial wisdom — Brown has left legal colleagues awestruck by his stamina and devotion to work. His service also epitomizes how the federal court system keeps working even as litigation steadily increases, new judgeships remain rare, and judicial openings go unfilled for months or years.

"Senior judges keep the federal court system afloat given the rising case loads," said David Sellers, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Of the 1,294 sitting federal judges, Brown is one of 516 on "senior status," a form of semi-retirement that allows a judge to collect his salary but work at a reduced case level if he chooses. They handle almost a quarter of federal district trials.

And no one alive has logged more service than Brown, who took senior status in 1979 but still worked fulltime until recently. In March, he stopped taking new criminal cases and lightened his case load a bit. He still takes his full share of the new civil cases.

"I do it to be a public service," Brown said. "You got to have a reason to live. As long as you perform a public service, you have a reason to live."

Brown gets a ride to the federal courthouse at 8:30 a.m. every workday from the assisted living center where he lives. Until he was in his 90s, he climbed the stairs to his fourth-floor chambers. He works until about 3 p.m. presiding over hearings, reading court filings and discussing cases with his law clerks who handle the legal research.

In one concession to age, he keeps court hearings relatively short. But he listens intently to testimony and tells defendants to speak up or slow down if he has trouble following their statements. And, if necessary, he can be stern with lawyers, prodding them in a strong voice not to waste time.

Brown is known for his compassion for defendants, even those he sends to prison. When he sentenced Kassie Liebsch last month to 37 months for her role in a ticket scalping scandal, he told the tearful 28-year-old woman how much he and other court officials wanted her to succeed in the future.

"As an old man, it is hard for me to say I am sorry it happened," Brown told her. "I know you will do the right thing. Good luck and be well."

Brown also serves a senior statesman in the courthouse, giving colleagues the benefit of his long experience.

"He never pressures us or tells us what to do," said District Judge Eric Melgren, 54. "He shares his thoughts and we can benefit as we see fit."

Melgren, formerly the U.S. attorney for Kansas, recalled that Brown took him aside after he became top federal prosecutor and advised him that the most important decisions he would make would be the ones no one knew about — the ones in which he declined to prosecute someone. Melgren found that to be sound advice. Melgren said Brown also shares his thoughts on points of law.

"I don't get the perspective that he is stuck in the last century," Melgren said. "His views are pretty much as the rest of us."

Brown has a computer on his desk that he uses to keep up with current events and trends.

Some parties in lawsuits, however, have been skeptical about the idea of a 103-year-old judge hearing their case.

Last month Brown ruled in favor of Omaha-based Northern Natural Gas Co. in its bid to condemn more than 9,100 acres in south-central Kansas to contain gas migrating from an underground storage facility. The decision angered some of the 173 property owners affected.

"I don't care how good a guy he is," said Dorothy Trinkle, of Preston, one of the landowners. "Your mental and physical attributes diminish with age and I think there should be a cutoff date for federal judges. This is ridiculous to have him in there at that age."

Brown — who was born on June 22, 1907, in Hutchinson, Kan. — is six years older than the next oldest sitting federal judge. At least eight other federal judges are in their 90s, according to a federal court database.

He began his career in private practice in Hutchinson in 1933 and was appointed U.S. district judge in 1962. He has outlived two wives and only moved into an assisted living center four years ago.

Brown was able to play golf with his staff until 2006. Now, because of his physical limitations, his chief hobby is reading. He prefers murder mysteries and borrows Louis L'Amour westerns from his law clerk.

Brown has asked his colleagues to notify him if at any point they feel he is no longer able to do his job.

"I will quit this job when I think it is time," Brown said. "And I hope I do so and leave the country in better shape because I have been a part of it."

FILE - In this June 4, 2007 file photo, U.S. Federal District Judge Wesley Brown poses in Wichita, Kan. Brown is the oldest working federal judge in the nation, one of four appointees by President Kennedy still on the bench. Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, and no one has taken that term more seriously than Brown.(AP Photo/The Hutchinson

April 10, 2011 02:01 PM EDT

 

Pace for News

 

 

MADISON HEIGHTS, Mich. (WJBK) - A big scare for an Oak Park family, their toddler was accidentally served alcohol in a kids meal at Applebee's. After a few swigs from his sippy cup, the 15-month-old boy needed a ride to the hospital. Taylor Dill-Reese says her son started acting strangely after drinking what she thought was apple juice. So, she tasted it and discovered the cup contained an alcoholic margarita mix.

The incident allegedly happened at 4:30pm Friday at the Applebee's on 14 Mile Rd. After being checked out by doctors, the family learned the boy's blood alcohol level was .10 -- over the legal limit for an adult driver.

"Nobody at the table ordered alcoholic drinks," said Dill-Reese. "So, he definitely shouldn't have received one."

The mom says a manager apologized to the family but didn't know what else to do. Thankfully the child is okay after being checked out at the hospital. Applebee's issued a statement calling the incident  "unacceptable" and promised to work with local authorities and even conduct their own investigation.