Instead of handing out FREE or reduced lunches, maybe we should hand out FREE birth control?

And the Obama administration has done just that;

Pro-lifers are horrified at the announcement Monday that the Obama administration has approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to guarantee full health insurance coverage for birth control, including the so-called “morning-after” pill, under the Affordable Care Act.

Okay, I’m a little late on this announcement (no pun intended) but it ties in well with this story on Stormland TV (by my new favorite reporter, Ms. Winters) about free and reduced lunches increasing;

SIOUX FALLS, SD – More and more families are applying for free or reduced lunch in the Sioux Falls School District.

Every year, for the past six years, the numbers have increased at the elementary, middle school and high school levels.

Make no mistake folks, over population is the root of most of our problems in this world. Global warming, hunger, war, annoying text messages, can all be blamed on it. Wear a freaking rubber for God’s sake, or for at least my sake.



19 comments ↓

#1 l3wis on 08.19.11 at 9:47 pm

Okay, before all of you numbskulls without a sense of humor come on here and tell me about your cousin’s sister’s uncle’s brother’s wife who got pregnant at the State fair from a corn kernel at the bingo tent that happened to have sperm on it, settle down. I was being snarky. Go eat your $.40 lunch and shut up.

#2 npo on 08.20.11 at 1:25 am

I was going to say, anyone who agrees, off yourself. Make the world a better place! Could you make that a bumper sticker?

#3 John2 on 08.20.11 at 6:48 am

Those numbers are nothing. There are entire classes, yes, off reservation, no where near reservations, in which every single class member receives a free or reduced price lunch. Ain’t the South Dakota economy great?!

Nothing to see here, move along. Oh, and pass that welfare for the millionaire socialist floodplain dwellers, and their banksters and developers.

#4 tdb on 08.20.11 at 9:43 am

As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

#5 tdb on 08.20.11 at 9:45 am

At first I thought Idiocracy was pretty funny, but now it’s not so funny. Because it’s true.

#6 Detroit Lewis on 08.20.11 at 10:12 am

Now that we have solved over population and hunger in America, let’s build an EC that we don’t need and let’s pay for it by taxing food!

#7 dick on 08.21.11 at 10:48 pm

Women with low self esteem need to continue to breed with dead beat dads so the democrats have a reason to hand out welfare and ebt card. Lord knows they need more doritos paid for by working people. I was going to ask for legislation to add Neports to accepted benifits for ebt. Maybe the county can have their employees pay for those too.

#8 l3wis on 08.22.11 at 5:37 am

I thought the state handed out welfare? And isn’t the state ran by Republicans? I’m just saying.

#9 Tom H. on 08.22.11 at 8:40 am

This is just one of the early manifestations of peak oil. Cheap oil has allowed us to produce much more food than we could if we only depended on renewable energy sources. Oil-based fertilizers have increased production enough to support a 7+ billion world population. As cheap oil is starting to run out, it’s getting harder and harder to feed this overshoot population. True carrying capacity on Earth is probably in the 1-2 billion range. The path that we take to get to that number is going to define human history for the next century or two.

One would hope that reasonable creatures like human beings could adopt birth control measures to lead a relatively pain-free descent to a sustainable population. If I were a betting man, however, I’d probably bet that War, Starvation and Genocide will get us there instead.

#10 l3wis on 08.22.11 at 1:03 pm

You are probably spot on with that assessment.

#11 Costner on 08.23.11 at 8:29 am

If I had a ray gun that could sterilize mass groups of people just by driving by while shooting it… I could solve this problem in a matter of days.

A few trips around some trailer parks, jails, meat packing plants, low income housing, and Nascar races and *BAM* – no more kids the parents can’t afford.

Is that wrong?

/snark

#12 l3wis on 08.23.11 at 10:39 am

There’s a few wealthier neighborhoods I would use them on too. I work with a couple of younger servers that come from ‘affluent’ families. I have never met anyone so book smart but so naive.

#13 l3wis on 08.23.11 at 10:40 am

Besides, it is overpopulation in general. The rich and middle-class’ poop and garbage piles up just the same as the poors’

#14 Costner on 08.23.11 at 12:57 pm

The thing is the ‘rich’ and middle class can generally afford to feed their kids. Just sayin.

However I really don’t think we are overpopulated. Our nation has more than enough resources to provide everything our population needs. We choose to export much of our grain and beef while importing trinkets and electronics, but if we closed our borders we would be just fine and would continue to survive.

#15 l3wis on 08.23.11 at 3:37 pm

You don’t think the world is overpopulated? You need to start reading something besides Dale Carnegie books.

#16 Costner on 08.24.11 at 8:16 am

I was referring to our nation… where we live. There are areas of the US which are overpopulated, but the US as a whole is not and we can produce more than enough to feed, cloth, and house every single person in the US whether they are here legally or illegally.

However the world as a whole isn’t overpopulated either, just certain parts of it.

We know there is a large percentage of Africa as well as China that is overpopulated (some actually disagree about China and rather suggest only certain cities within China are overpopulated). I could also agree that India is in that list as well as a few other far east areas, but there is a large share of our world which has more than enough resources to support tens of millions more humans including North America, Italy, France, Germany, most of Scandinavia, (most of Europe actually), Australia, and even places like South America.

We have roughly 6 Billion people on Earth, but the planet itself can probably support twice that many – and that is using today’s technology and resources. If we ever figure out a way to capture even 5% of the sun’s energy and we continue to increase crop yeilds as we have been able to do the last 30 years, we could go much further.

I’m not saying we should by any means… I’m just sayin we could.

And for the record, aside from some snappy quotes that seem to be plastered on motivational signs, I’ve never read a single sentence of Dale Carnegie.

#17 l3wis on 08.24.11 at 9:41 am

You obviously are not kin to the scientific community. That’s okay, I’m not either, but I try to listen to what they have to say.

#18 Costner on 08.24.11 at 10:26 am

I listen to scientists much more than politicians. Just depends on the issue you are referring to. Climate change for instance – yes I trust science. However I also have to admit everyone (even scientists) have their opinions, so I tend to look towards the areas of overwhelming agreement rather than the outliers.

Is there some mass concensus that argues the human race is at an unsustainable level and are unable to survive due to lack of resources? If so by all means let me know where to start reading so I can educate myself… but that goes against pretty much everything I have read or heard.

Not saying I’m not wrong – just saying this line of thinking is the opposite of what I’ve been told and what I have read, but if there is new data to suggest otherwise I’m all ears. Granted there is a TON of earth-muffin “green” propaganda that suggests we are harming mother earth etc, etc, but the real science doesn’t agree.

The amount of resources isn’t the problem. Distribution of those resources is the problem. Thus you can say some areas are overpopulated, but clearly we have more than enough food and energy and resources to sustain many more lives than we do currently. (Again I’m not saying we should – merely that we have the ability to). The issue is that some areas (such as the US) have an overabundance of resources as well as massive untapped resources, while other areas have little to no resources and cannot sustain themselves.

Again – a distribution problem.

#19 Detroit Lewis on 08.24.11 at 10:45 am

“Granted there is a TON of earth-muffin “green” propaganda that suggests we are harming mother earth etc, etc, but the real science doesn’t agree.”

Before the white man showed up in America, the natives enjoyed a very disease free lifestyle. Google from there.

Leave a Comment