Real food - is that too much to ask?

[darin]

Great TEDx video regarding cleaning up the food industry.

http://www.wimp.com/realfood/

Watch that -then dig up youtubes for Food, Inc.

Now - after watching those, think about our Government shutting down Amish farms and other raw, real food establishments. When I close my mind I envision a nation where the Government raises our kids after birth, controls/demands our diets, and removes any form of resistance 'for our own good/safety'.

[Jess]

Well, come on, D - teachers know better than parents what is best for their kids, so it only makes sense the government knows what is best for us in all those other things too ...


Debbie Squires, education official at the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association (MEMSPA), has sparked some controversy after telling the House Education Committee in a hearing for a new school choice package, that teachers know better than parents what's best for their children, MLive.com reports. (http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/02/readers_debate_whether_parents.html) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/debbie-squires-education-official-says-teachers-know-better-than-parents_n_1264025.html

[Black Diamond]

Great TEDx video regarding cleaning up the food industry.

http://www.wimp.com/realfood/

Watch that -then dig up youtubes for Food, Inc.

Now - after watching those, think about our Government shutting down Amish farms and other raw, real food establishments. When I close my mind I envision a nation where the Government raises our kids after birth, controls/demands our diets, and removes any form of resistance 'for our own good/safety'.
Obamajugend.

[ConHog]

Well, come on, D - teachers know better than parents what is best for their kids, so it only makes sense the government knows what is best for us in all those other things too ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/debbie-squires-education-official-says-teachers-know-better-than-parents_n_1264025.html

There are a lot of stupid parents out there who put their child's best interests very far back on their priority list , if they are there at all, but I'd vote to terminate any of my teachers who actually voiced such an opinion. The idea is to encourage parents to engage and aid in their child's education, not say " we know what's best, shut up!"

[darin]

Society does not have the job, but it takes it, saving parents from aforementioned 'stupid' parents. If a kid has stupid parents, it's their lot in life - the responsibility of the kid to over-come.

[ConHog]

Society does not have the job, but it takes it, saving parents from aforementioned 'stupid' parents. If a kid has stupid parents, it's their lot in life - the responsibility of the kid to over-come.

It's a catch 22 . Schools SHOULDN'T be parenting, but parents have dumped it on them. When a student who has shitty parenting acts up, he is disrupting not just his education but that of those around him. In an ideal world we'd just send his ass home and tell his parents to keep him there until he can behave. But that of course isn't how it works. So schools take the "easier" route and they become parents as well as educators.

[darin]

If a kid acts-up due to shitty parenting, the right answer is to ban the kid from school. Not to try to become surrogate parents.

But this thread is about the foods we eat -which generally suck.

[ConHog]

If a kid acts-up due to shitty parenting, the right answer is to ban the kid from school. Not to try to become surrogate parents.

But this thread is about the foods we eat -which generally suck.

I agree on both counts.

[gabosaurus]

It's a wonderful Catch 22. We demand schools serve healthy meals. Trouble is, schools feeds hundreds (and thousands) with limited resources. And unlimited input from those who don't often bother at home.

What I find interesting is that the same people who protest unhealthy food often take their kids out to McDonalds or Taco Bell. Which are about as far from "healthy" as you can get.

[darin]

It's a wonderful Catch 22. We demand schools serve healthy meals. Trouble is, schools feeds hundreds (and thousands) with limited resources. And unlimited input from those who don't often bother at home.

What I find interesting is that the same people who protest unhealthy food often take their kids out to McDonalds or Taco Bell. Which are about as far from "healthy" as you can get.


WHO demands it? I certainly don't. I demand schools get out of the food industry. YOU demand stuff from schools; you and your fools who are so-committed to the downfall of our society with your terrible, TERRIBLE ideas on how to govern, run, and educate.

What I find interesting is the same people who claim to be in the education field are woefully inept and ignorant of ideas concerning policies, lessons, and plans that are good, true, and right. :)

[ConHog]

WHO demands it? I certainly don't. I demand schools get out of the food industry. YOU demand stuff from schools; you and your fools who are so-committed to the downfall of our society with your terrible, TERRIBLE ideas on how to govern, run, and educate.

What I find interesting is the same people who claim to be in the education field are woefully inept and ignorant of ideas concerning policies, lessons, and plans that are good, true, and right. :)

I think - make that I KNOW - that I can make a case that providing meals for school students increases their chances of academic success.

Now of course you can come back with parents should be providing meals and you are absolutely correct, Please start telling as many people as you can that they need to start raising their own damned kids and let our schools concentrate on education. Good luck convincing them.

[darin]

I think - make that I KNOW - that I can make a case that providing meals for school students increases their chances of academic success.

First problem: Define Success. Second problem define: increased chances. Third problem: Do not use statistics. Forth problem: Tie the meal from the school as the DEFINING or significantly-contributing factor to 'increased chances' and 'success' - again, after you defined those. Fifth: Explain why it's my problem (via my tax dollars) if another person's kid has (properly defined) increased chances for (properly defined) success.


Now of course you can come back with parents should be providing meals and you are absolutely correct, Please start telling as many people as you can that they need to start raising their own damned kids and let our schools concentrate on education. Good luck convincing them.

You're what we call an 'enabler'.

[ConHog]

First problem: Define Success. Second problem define: increased chances. Third problem: Do not use statistics. Forth problem: Tie the meal from the school as the DEFINING or significantly-contributing factor to 'increased chances' and 'success' - again, after you defined those. Fifth: Explain why it's my problem (via my tax dollars) if another person's kid has (properly defined) increased chances for (properly defined) success.



You're what we call an 'enabler'.

Simple. If we give kids every advantage to succeed they are less likely to need government assistance later on in life.

Of all the government waste are you really going to quibble over school lunches?

[darin]

Simple. If we give kids every advantage to succeed they are less likely to need government assistance later on in life.

Or, eliminate the gov't assistance later in life and kids have a stronger motivation to succeed. :)


Of all the government waste are you really going to quibble over school lunches?

Red Herring.

[Gunny]

Simple. If we give kids every advantage to succeed they are less likely to need government assistance later on in life.

Of all the government waste are you really going to quibble over school lunches?

I'm your huckleberry.

There isn't a quibble because I'll be damned if anyone is telling me what to feed my kids. They need government assistance because the government is feeding them its own PC BS. I was 5'10" and 150 lbs in junion high. I had a sandwich, chips, fruit, a drink and desert EVERY day.

Obviously, it's not the food itself.

I also played EVERy sport in the world (that requires balls, anyway). I built my own bicycles and wrecked them jumping shitcans as fast as I could build them. Maybe people ought to quit looking for the government to bail out their own lack of responsibility and try being parents.

[DragonStryk72]

Well, let's start off: School lunches are usually paid for by the students, and are kept somewhat cheap, with the ability to borrow from the office in the case you forget/lose your lunch in some way. At least, this is the way it was back in 93-97 when I was in high school. Yes, being well fed puts you in a better mindset for studies, better studying produces better grades, and unless you're going to prove that starving people study better, DMP, then I have to side with CH here.

However, the offering of school lunches and breakfasts isn't really the issue here. That's a discussion for another thread. It's what is in the school lunches that's an issue. As the woman said in her speech, We have never done any sort of testing on these proteins and such that are being put into the vast overwhelming majority of the food, while we are making the people who don't want the chemicals in theirs do a greater degree of regular testing and forcing them to pay extra fees that raise their price points on making the food.

In the Navy, we're extremely picky about food prep, because we have to be. One simple case of undercooked chicken grounded more than half of our 1000 man crew to food poisoning, including myself. This is why things in the military tend to be overcooked a ways, because they have to be certain than nothing gets into the crew. If you look at food as our fuel, then you realize you have to be careful what you're putting in the tank, just as putting diesel in an unleaded only engine would be a bad thing, the reverse is also true. Now, imagine that all the gas stations in the USA had switched their fuel, but of course, people don't know this, because they just stick the nozzle into the gas tank and fill up. What would happen to the cars, and what would be the fall out nationwide?

It's the same thing with our food. People believe that the government is by and large making sure the food is safe before it makes it to the store or restaurant, so we just buy the food when we get there figuring it's good enough. This of course isn't true as we're finding out, and this woman seems to have stumbled upon a key part of the of the problem. It's what gets done with that information.

[fj1200]

Simple. If we give kids every advantage to succeed they are less likely to need government assistance later on in life.

Of all the government waste are you really going to quibble over school lunches?

Well if you look at it issue-by-issue then it's easy to say, "hey, let's just provide them some breakfast..." Then it's an easy leap to make. If you say, "hey, we're providing yet another service that takes away responsibility from where it should be..." Then that should be a completely different answer.

[fj1200]

WHO demands it? I certainly don't. I demand schools get out of the food industry. YOU demand stuff...

To be fair to gabby, it's what she knows. "They" demand it because it's the quick feel good decision rather than the better long-term solution.

[Gunny]

Well, let's start off: School lunches are usually paid for by the students, and are kept somewhat cheap, with the ability to borrow from the office in the case you forget/lose your lunch in some way. At least, this is the way it was back in 93-97 when I was in high school. Yes, being well fed puts you in a better mindset for studies, better studying produces better grades, and unless you're going to prove that starving people study better, DMP, then I have to side with CH here.

However, the offering of school lunches and breakfasts isn't really the issue here. That's a discussion for another thread. It's what is in the school lunches that's an issue. As the woman said in her speech, We have never done any sort of testing on these proteins and such that are being put into the vast overwhelming majority of the food, while we are making the people who don't want the chemicals in theirs do a greater degree of regular testing and forcing them to pay extra fees that raise their price points on making the food.

In the Navy, we're extremely picky about food prep, because we have to be. One simple case of undercooked chicken grounded more than half of our 1000 man crew to food poisoning, including myself. This is why things in the military tend to be overcooked a ways, because they have to be certain than nothing gets into the crew. If you look at food as our fuel, then you realize you have to be careful what you're putting in the tank, just as putting diesel in an unleaded only engine would be a bad thing, the reverse is also true. Now, imagine that all the gas stations in the USA had switched their fuel, but of course, people don't know this, because they just stick the nozzle into the gas tank and fill up. What would happen to the cars, and what would be the fall out nationwide?

It's the same thing with our food. People believe that the government is by and large making sure the food is safe before it makes it to the store or restaurant, so we just buy the food when we get there figuring it's good enough. This of course isn't true as we're finding out, and this woman seems to have stumbled upon a key part of the of the problem. It's what gets done with that information.

:laugh:

You were in HS 93-97? *Ahem* 74-77?

And way to blame overcooked Navy food on health. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Well if you look at it issue-by-issue then it's easy to say, "hey, let's just provide them some breakfast..." Then it's an easy leap to make. If you say, "hey, we're providing yet another service that takes away responsibility from where it should be..." Then that should be a completely different answer.

Sorry, I don't favor teaching parents a lesson on responsibility via letting their kids go hungry at school.

Now, THAT being said, I WOULD favor making parents who's children receive free or reduced priced lunches do some volunteer work at the school to help offset the cost. No different than I would favor making welfare recipients perform volunteer work in their communities.

To me that's a win win. Schools always have yard work that needs to be done, janitorial work, kitchen help, just whatever............. Same with most communities have trash on the roads that need to be picked up, at the very least.

[Gunny]

Sorry, I don't favor teaching parents a lesson on responsibility via letting their kids go hungry at school.

Now, THAT being said, I WOULD favor making parents who's children receive free or reduced priced lunches do some volunteer work at the school to help offset the cost. No different than I would favor making welfare recipients perform volunteer work in their communities.

To me that's a win win. Schools always have yard work that needs to be done, janitorial work, kitchen help, just whatever............. Same with most communities have trash on the roads that need to be picked up, at the very least.

And I don't believe in the government telling parents how to raise their children.

If you can't be responsible enough to be a parent, keep your legs closed.

[ConHog]

And I don't believe in the government telling parents how to raise their children.

If you can't be responsible enough to be a parent, keep your legs closed.

What does that have to do with providing reduced price or free lunches? If you're hinting about the incident where a school just on their own decided a home supplied meal wasn't good enough. I'm on your side. Those employees would be GONE if they were at the school that I'm a school member of. End of story.

[Gunny]

What does that have to do with providing reduced price or free lunches? If you're hinting about the incident where a school just on their own decided a home supplied meal wasn't good enough. I'm on your side. Those employees would be GONE if they were at the school that I'm a school member of. End of story.

Reduced price or free lunches? Welfare. Government subsidized and controlled meals.

Last I checked, the US Government doesn't have the right to tell me what to feed my kids. If you know something different, feel free to post it, bu tth efact is, it isn't Constitutional.

I didn't agree to support and defend the US Government. I agreed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[darin]

What does that have to do with providing reduced price or free lunches? If you're hinting about the incident where a school just on their own decided a home supplied meal wasn't good enough. I'm on your side. Those employees would be GONE if they were at the school that I'm a school member of. End of story.


You wrote the government, by denying lunches in this case, is somehow 'teaching parents a lesson'. that's the link. Maybe kids would learn BETTER with less food in some cases? Thus, by not sending my kid with a lunch I might be trying to enhance the education he/she receives. If I believe that's the case, the government should butt-out and let me decide when my kid eats lunch, or what he/she eats. :)

[fj1200]

Sorry, I don't favor teaching parents a lesson on responsibility via letting their kids go hungry at school.

You've got to start somewhere and a good place is understanding the unseen effects of policy. Maybe if you DO teach parents a lesson on responsibility their kids will no longer expect that the school is the place for breakfast.

[ConHog]

You wrote the government, by denying lunches in this case, is somehow 'teaching parents a lesson'. that's the link. Maybe kids would learn BETTER with less food in some cases? Thus, by not sending my kid with a lunch I might be trying to enhance the education he/she receives. If I believe that's the case, the government should butt-out and let me decide when my kid eats lunch, or what he/she eats. :)

Maybe the kids would learn what better? A school's job is NOT to teach kids life lessons. That is a parental responsibility. So why are you okay with the school doing some things a parent should do, but not others?


You've got to start somewhere and a good place is understanding the unseen effects of policy. Maybe if you DO teach parents a lesson on responsibility their kids will no longer expect that the school is the place for breakfast.

Same answer. That isn't a lesson for schools to be teaching.

[darin]

Maybe the kids would learn what better? A school's job is NOT to teach kids life lessons. That is a parental responsibility. So why are you okay with the school doing some things a parent should do, but not others?



Are we discussing 'other things a parent should do', which is now left for schools, or are we discussing this one thing? If you'd like to discuss other things school does which 'should' be a parent's job, please - let's list those out. But simply resorting to 'changing the subject' doesn't help your argument, which I've deduced boils down to this: The public - through the public school system in this case, has a responsibility to care for the kids of OTHER parents, regardless of that parents' desire to do so.

I contend societal responsibility ends upon the choice of a parent.

[gabosaurus]

Obviously, it's not the food itself.


It's called "heredity." Some people can eat nothing and be 200 pounds. Others (like myself and my sister) can eat everything put in front of us and barely tip 100 pounds.
Now stupidity, that is not heredity in most cases. You're stupid because you want to be stupid. Or because you are a Republican. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Same answer. That isn't a lesson for schools to be teaching.

Oh yes it is. The schools have already put themselves in the position, or have been put in the position, of teaching parents to NOT provide for their offspring.

[ConHog]

Are we discussing 'other things a parent should do', which is now left for schools, or are we discussing this one thing? If you'd like to discuss other things school does which 'should' be a parent's job, please - let's list those out. But simply resorting to 'changing the subject' doesn't help your argument, which I've deduced boils down to this: The public - through the public school system in this case, has a responsibility to care for the kids of OTHER parents, regardless of that parents' desire to do so.

I contend societal responsibility ends upon the choice of a parent.

I didn't attempt to change the subject, I merely answered the charge that a school 's place is to teach a kid that choices have consequences. The answer to that is no.

Now let's go back to food for kids.

Here is in a nutshell why I support feeding kids who either can't afford it or who simnply have parents who don't bother. ANd yes we have kids in our elementary school even who get themselves up and on the school bus every morning while either parents are working or sleeping. That's a reality. Now in some of those cases mom/dad will pay ahead of time for lunch, so its not in EVERY such situation that the parents are losers who need our help. BUT there are some situations where the kid gets up , and gets on the bus, not only with no lunch, but not having had any breakfast, and in some cases without having had even a shower. And yes, we provide that to if needed (donated soap and luandry services for towels.)

Now here's two reasons I support that.

1) Because kids are mean and will pick on other kids for ANYTHING including being dirty and or hungry/without lunch at lunch time. By providing them with a meal that NO ONE else knows is reduced or free we eliminate that possibility, and keeping kids safe from bullies most assuredly is a school's job.

2) A more nourished student is a better student. I'm not talking about life lessons here, I'm talking about school subjects. That is also a fact, a student who is hungry will not concentrate or do as well as a student who is not hungry. So we get them doing better in school, then they are more likely to graduate and even go on to college. You can scoff if you like, but that's true. And the more educated they are , the less likely that they will be welfare later in life. And let's face it welfare isn't going anywhere. So why not make a small investment early to try to prevent a welfare leach from ever being created?

[gabosaurus]

The number one complaint about schools is "why do you serve free breakfast and/or lunch."
The answer is "kids have to eat somehow."
Schools can't require parents to feed their kids. Schools are required to educate kids. The best way to get kids to come to school is to offer them something to eat. No one can learn anything if they are hungry.
In our schools, breakfast is often followed by tutoring sessions. Or study time.
Kids shouldn't be punished for the sins of their parents. Some kids get the only love and respect in their lives in school.
Schools are not the military. Those who make mistakes or fail to do their jobs can't be made to do physical, or yelled at for an hour.
Yes, you can find singular instances where policies have been abused. I can match them with 10 instances where they aren't.

[darin]

I didn't attempt to change the subject, I merely answered the charge that a school 's place is to teach a kid that choices have consequences. The answer to that is no.


You're answering a charge you made?



Now let's go back to food for kids.

Here is in a nutshell why I support feeding kids who either can't afford it or who simnply have parents who don't bother. ANd yes we have kids in our elementary school even who get themselves up and on the school bus every morning while either parents are working or sleeping. That's a reality. Now in some of those cases mom/dad will pay ahead of time for lunch, so its not in EVERY such situation that the parents are losers who need our help. BUT there are some situations where the kid gets up , and gets on the bus, not only with no lunch, but not having had any breakfast, and in some cases without having had even a shower. And yes, we provide that to if needed (donated soap and luandry services for towels.)

Now here's two reasons I support that.

1) Because kids are mean and will pick on other kids for ANYTHING including being dirty and or hungry/without lunch at lunch time. By providing them with a meal that NO ONE else knows is reduced or free we eliminate that possibility, and keeping kids safe from bullies most assuredly is a school's job.

2) A more nourished student is a better student. I'm not talking about life lessons here, I'm talking about school subjects. That is also a fact, a student who is hungry will not concentrate or do as well as a student who is not hungry. So we get them doing better in school, then they are more likely to graduate and even go on to college. You can scoff if you like, but that's true. And the more educated they are , the less likely that they will be welfare later in life. And let's face it welfare isn't going anywhere. So why not make a small investment early to try to prevent a welfare leach from ever being created?

In short, you're worried a kid might 'feel bad'. If a kid feels bad, you'd feel bad.

[ConHog]

You're answering a charge you made?



In short, you're worried a kid might 'feel bad'. If a kid feels bad, you'd feel bad.

what? I didn't say anything about a kid feeling bad, I DID say something about a kid being picked on and being hungry.

[MtnBiker]

There are kids with parents that do not or can not dress their kids properly, the kids do not have the right clothing for bad weather. No one can learn anything if they are cold or uncomfortable in their cloths. The answer is "kids have to be clothed somehow."

There are kids that have very poor hygiene, their teeth are bad, their hair is dirty, they smell bad. Kids shouldn't be punished for the sins of their parents. The answer is "kids have to be cleaned somehow."

Some kids get the only love and respect in their lives in school. So schools should be dressing and cleaning and feeding the childern of this country. Schools may overeach in a few singular instances, but for every one there would be 10 that were not!

[darin]

what? I didn't say anything about a kid feeling bad, I DID say something about a kid being picked on and being hungry.

I summarized your 'argument'.

Your argument speaks to my comment: You don't like how you feel if a kid feels hungry. Thus, it's the responsibility of the entire population to keep that from happening.

Then, you went on to make wild claims and broad statements of "fact" without basis in data. :) I left those alone.

[Gunny]

There are kids with parents that do not or can not dress their kids properly, the kids do not have the right clothing for bad weather. No one can learn anything if they are cold or uncomfortable in their cloths. The answer is "kids have to be clothed somehow."

There are kids that have very poor hygiene, their teeth are bad, their hair is dirty, they smell bad. Kids shouldn't be punished for the sins of their parents. The answer is "kids have to be cleaned somehow."

Some kids get the only love and respect in their lives in school. So schools should be dressing and cleaning and feeding the childern of this country. Schools may overeach in a few singular instances, but for every one there would be 10 that were not!


Then take those kids away from their parent(s).

Good parents shouldn't be punished because there are crappy ones out there. That's the whole problem with this Nation anymore. We cater to the 10% of screwups rather than forcing THEM to get with the program. Not sure about you, but I have an issue with forcing 90% to comply with 10% rather than the other way around.

[MtnBiker]

Then take those kids away from their parent(s).

Good parents shouldn't be punished because there are crappy ones out there. That's the whole problem with this Nation anymore. We cater to the 10% of screwups rather than forcing THEM to get with the program. Not sure about you, but I have an issue with forcing 90% to comply with 10% rather than the other way around.

Hey Gunny, I was riding the sarcasm train.

Bad parenting can be used to justify a multitude of government school intervention. I mean, let's not forget that some kids do not have a restfull night's sleep because their parents do not provide proper beds, in fact it can be lethal in some cases. The answer is "kids have to sleep somehow". Schools should provide dormitories for kids so they can have a good night's sleep.

http://www.wisn.com/r/29858064/detail.html

[ConHog]

There are kids with parents that do not or can not dress their kids properly, the kids do not have the right clothing for bad weather. No one can learn anything if they are cold or uncomfortable in their cloths. The answer is "kids have to be clothed somehow."

There are kids that have very poor hygiene, their teeth are bad, their hair is dirty, they smell bad. Kids shouldn't be punished for the sins of their parents. The answer is "kids have to be cleaned somehow."

Some kids get the only love and respect in their lives in school. So schools should be dressing and cleaning and feeding the childern of this country. Schools may overeach in a few singular instances, but for every one there would be 10 that were not!


well, in actuality, I'm FOR school uniforms, so I guess you got me there. But no one is suggesting anything about dental care, or haircuts.


Hey Gunny, I was riding the sarcasm train.

Bad parenting can be used to justify a multitude of government school intervention. I mean, let's not forget that some kids do not have a restfull night's sleep because their parents do not provide proper beds, in fact it can be lethal in some cases. The answer is "kids have to sleep somehow". Schools should provide dormitories for kids so they can have a good night's sleep.

http://www.wisn.com/r/29858064/detail.html


Why do some of you act like being conservative means being the biggest , meanest dicks you can possibly be? They're fucking kids , feed them and shut up. If you're that mean spirited figure out how much of your tax money is going towards giving kid free or reduced priced lunches , arrange the appropriate paperwork, PM me and I'll send you a check for that amount.

Sheesh

[Kathianne]

Why do some of you act like being conservative means being the biggest , meanest dicks you can possibly be? They're fucking kids , feed them and shut up. If you're that mean spirited figure out how much of your tax money is going towards giving kid free or reduced priced lunches , arrange the appropriate paperwork, PM me and I'll send you a check for that amount.

Sheesh

The same parents that can't find a way to feed their kids lunch, breakfast, dinner, are unlikely to cloth or tend to their medical/dental needs. They are also unlikely to have them in bed at a reasonable hour or provide the reasonable survey of their work. It doesn't take mastery to help the child, but interest.

[ConHog]

The same parents that can't find a way to feed their kids lunch, breakfast, dinner, are unlikely to cloth or tend to their medical/dental needs. They are also unlikely to have them in bed at a reasonable hour or provide the reasonable survey of their work. It doesn't take mastery to help the child, but interest.

No doubt there, and obviously there has to be a line where the school just can't do anymore. Providing a $3 lunch as compared to providing medical care are obviously not on the same plane.

[MtnBiker]

Why do some of you act like being conservative means being the biggest , meanest dicks you can possibly be? They're fucking kids , feed them and shut up. If you're that mean spirited figure out how much of your tax money is going towards giving kid free or reduced priced lunches , arrange the appropriate paperwork, PM me and I'll send you a check for that amount.

Sheesh

Lighten up Francis. My actual concern is not kids having a good meal, but people justifying the roll of schools (government) based on their perception of bad parents. Whose standard of parenting is used? How far will people go in justifying the roll of government in kids lives.

[darin]

No doubt there, and obviously there has to be a line where the school just can't do anymore. Providing a $3 lunch as compared to providing medical care are obviously not on the same plane.

...yet freezing/cutting Federal Employee pay/salaries is a good thing? Lots of things are nothing but proverbial drops in buckets. But, they add up.

Look - here's the whole deal. No matter what, I am tired of FORCED charity in every form. Paying for the lunch of probably obese kids, or at the very least non-starving kids, burns my britches.

[Abbey Marie]

You wrote the government, by denying lunches in this case, is somehow 'teaching parents a lesson'. that's the link. Maybe kids would learn BETTER with less food in some cases? Thus, by not sending my kid with a lunch I might be trying to enhance the education he/she receives. If I believe that's the case, the government should butt-out and let me decide when my kid eats lunch, or what he/she eats. :)

I usually feel more alert before I eat than afterward. After lunch, I usually feel like having a siesta. As long as the hunger isn't so bad that I can't concentrate. A couple of crackers would allay that.

[Kathianne]

Lighten up Francis. My actual concern is not kids having a good meal, but people justifying the roll of schools (government) based on their perception of bad parents. Whose standard of parenting is used? How far will people go in justifying the roll of government in kids lives.

The 'truly poor' should have access to food. Between WIC and food stamps, seems that should be be mostly covered. Those who make too much may avail themselves to food pantries.

So what is the deal with schools? Why should a parent that qualifies for WIC and Food stamps, need free lunches/breakfasts/dinners for their children? How many times does one kid count?

[Abbey Marie]

well, in actuality, I'm FOR school uniforms, so I guess you got me there. But no one is suggesting anything about dental care, or haircuts.




Why do some of you act like being conservative means being the biggest , meanest dicks you can possibly be? They're fucking kids , feed them and shut up. If you're that mean spirited figure out how much of your tax money is going towards giving kid free or reduced priced lunches , arrange the appropriate paperwork, PM me and I'll send you a check for that amount.

Sheesh

Our district takes preschoolers to their dental appointments. What you need to see, Con, is that there is no end to where the nanny state will go, on our dime.

[ConHog]

Our district takes preschoolers to their dental appointments. What you need to see, Con, is that there is no end to where the nanny state will go, on our dime.

Meals, that's all we're discussing in THIS thread. Start a thread on schools taking any children to dental appointments and I'll join you in disagreeing with that.

Oh a couple comments were made earlier to that I want to address.

Yes, families SHOULD use SNAP to buy lunch for their kids if they are receiving that, but not every family that is receiving reduced priced or free lunches at school is on SNAP.

I got an idea, let's make poor kids wear signs that say "poor" on them, that was they are easier for the bullies to identify. I'm sure that more ass whippings and being made fun of will make sure they are not sucking up welfare.

[Intense]

Great TEDx video regarding cleaning up the food industry.

http://www.wimp.com/realfood/

Watch that -then dig up youtubes for Food, Inc.

Now - after watching those, think about our Government shutting down Amish farms and other raw, real food establishments. When I close my mind I envision a nation where the Government raises our kids after birth, controls/demands our diets, and removes any form of resistance 'for our own good/safety'.

Great Presentation. Well prepared. Yeah, Genetic Engineering of our food supply without testing, and Government compliance, running cover, for unethical practices is very disturbing. Just more confirmation on where even the EPA's interests really lie, in supporting this crime, while busting the chops of anything going Organic.

The Unhealthy Truth:
How Our Food Is Making Us Sick and What We Can Do About It

In a first-person story as shocking as it is inspirational, The Unhealthy Truth published in May 2009 by Random House, reveals the alarming relationship between the manipulation of our food and both the increase in dangerous allergies in our children as well as the increase in cancers in our families—and offers a road map to healthy living.

Robyn O’Brien is an unlikely candidate for a crusade. A Houston native from a conservative family, this MBA and married mother of four was not someone who gave much thought to what went on inside government agencies or about the additives and chemicals in our food. Until the day her youngest daughter had a violent allergic reaction to eggs, and everything changed. 

From Your Link.

http://www.robynobrien.com/books.html

[fj1200]

Why do some of you act like being conservative means being the biggest , meanest dicks you can possibly be?

Condescension is preferred then? How about this; announce that you will no longer be providing breakfast or lunch at school at the beginning of next school year and then find out who shows up at school hungry. Once the actual need is identified inform DFACS that Johnny's family needs a little help in providing proper sustenance.


I got an idea, let's make poor kids wear signs that say "poor" on them, that was they are easier for the bullies to identify. I'm sure that more ass whippings and being made fun of will make sure they are not sucking up welfare.

I'm pretty sure that the state sponsored karate lessons that you're school district will provide will allay those issues.

[ConHog]

Condescension is preferred then? How about this; announce that you will no longer be providing breakfast or lunch at school at the beginning of next school year and then find out who shows up at school hungry. Once the actual need is identified inform DFACS that Johnny's family needs a little help in providing proper sustenance.



I'm pretty sure that the state sponsored karate lessons that you're school district will provide will allay those issues.

so you propose that rather than spending a few dollars to feed some kids that we now start sicking the government on families who maybe aren't feeding their children?

Sounds like government get out of my life to me.:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

so you propose that rather than spending a few dollars to feed some kids that we now start sicking the government on families who maybe aren't feeding their children?

Sounds like government get out of my life to me.:rolleyes:

The government is already there. I just want the particular government agency to do what they were created to do. Educators to educate and welfare providers to provide welfare.

That doesn't sound crazy does it?

[logroller]

I summarized your 'argument'.

Your argument speaks to my comment: You don't like how you feel if a kid feels hungry. Thus, it's the responsibility of the entire population to keep that from happening.

Then, you went on to make wild claims and broad statements of "fact" without basis in data. :) I left those alone.
His argument is a school's role is to provide the best learning environment they can; if hungry kids inhibit this, feed them. Its really pretty simple.
Your argument is, summarily, 'not my f'ing problem'... indeed, its the school's-- so butt out.
So far as broad statements without data-- do you recall saying

.. Do not use statistics. ..
So unless you misspoke, and meant, rather, you did not use statistics; as in, he failed to, then you defined the rules of argument.


Lighten up Francis. My actual concern is not kids having a good meal, but people justifying the roll of schools (government) based on their perception of bad parents. Whose standard of parenting is used? How far will people go in justifying the roll of government in kids lives.
My kids qualify for reduced lunches; on the paperwork there was no parenting questions-- purely fiscal. The problem I see is when schools offer healthy foods, it mostly goes uneaten-- especially among lower income schools. This is a problem because the reasoning behind feeding the kids, obviously, if for them to eat. So, regardless of how well-intentioned subsidized lunch and eating standards may be, they don't accomplish the laws' prescribed role of, respectfully, kids eating and eating healthy. SO, which standard is to be sacrificed? The healthier meal goes uneaten, so feed em crap-- at least they're fed. This demonstrates the inefficacy of institutions. I believe there is good reason the founders didn't enumerate education as a federal power, not because it wasn't considered valuable, but because they knew it would be best managed on a more local basis. Additionally, it can be examined in a cafeteria full of 200 kids, there's maybe two or three adults there and the kids just do what they want. If I might offer some anecdotal evidence, my wife brings in healthy food once a month and feeds the kids herself-- and more eat it than don't. Acting in small groups is the best way to engage people, and certainly children. Of course, teachers and their unions don't like the idea of teachers having to teach kids how to eat healthy and monitor their behavior...which I happen to think is the best solution.(perhaps the only one)

[ConHog]

The government is already there. I just want the particular government agency to do what they were created to do. Educators to educate and welfare providers to provide welfare.

That doesn't sound crazy does it?

What freakin difference does it make? Except that with the school providing the meals, we KNOW the meal makes it to the student at school. As stated , pretty good evidence that SNAP benefits aren't being used to send meals to school.

[pegwinn]

It's a wonderful Catch 22. We demand schools serve healthy meals. Trouble is, schools feeds hundreds (and thousands) with limited resources. And unlimited input from those who don't often bother at home.

What I find interesting is that the same people who protest unhealthy food often take their kids out to McDonalds or Taco Bell. Which are about as far from "healthy" as you can get.

I have a Taco Bell jones like no ones business. Fallbrook HS, where my son attended, actually has a no-shit Taco Bell on campus.


What I find interesting is the same people who claim to be in the education field are woefully inept and ignorant of ideas concerning policies, lessons, and plans that are good, true, and right. :)

My oldest kid is a high school sciences teacher (Bio, Chem, Physics). School policy is driven by politics which is driven by yada blah etc. It boils down to the "one guy rule". One hundred Marines can storm bar street in (fill in the blank with foriegn liberty port here) and it only takes one fuck up to get the innocent 99 confined to ship/base/camp.

One parent who fucks up draws the attention of 'society' that means well and is able to fuck up by the numbers. But, since that one parent cannot seem to be a parent, the other 99 kids "benifit" from societal interventions trying to prevent the "one guy rule" from happening.

I don't have an answer. If the federal .gov steps in it is constitutionally wrong. If we allow malnourished kids to starve it is morally wrong.

[fj1200]

What freakin difference does it make? Except that with the school providing the meals, we KNOW the meal makes it to the student at school. As stated , pretty good evidence that SNAP benefits aren't being used to send meals to school.

And why would they be? You'll give them breakfast/lunch.


One parent who fucks up draws the attention of 'society' that means well and is able to fuck up by the numbers. But, since that one parent cannot seem to be a parent, the other 99 kids "benifit" from societal interventions trying to prevent the "one guy rule" from happening.

And there in lies the problem. Instead of a policy to address the 1, we get policies that address 100.

[DragonStryk72]

:laugh:

You were in HS 93-97? *Ahem* 74-77?

And way to blame overcooked Navy food on health. :laugh:

lol, it's in the god damned manuals! Like, if you look at the listed cook times and such, they're all set about 5-15 minutes longer than they should be.

[SassyLady]

I was one of those kids who got "free" lunches, but we had to work on the cafeteria line as an exchange. I had to hand out milk so everyone in school knew I was getting a free lunch. So, the whole concept of bullies picking on the poor kids is not new.

[darin]

His argument is a school's role is to provide the best learning environment they can; if hungry kids inhibit this, feed them. Its really pretty simple.
Your argument is, summarily, 'not my f'ing problem'... indeed, its the school's-- so butt out.
So far as broad statements without data-- do you recall saying


And my argument is: He cannot define the terms I listed. Unless we agree upon what 'best' or 'better' means, it's just folks reciting feel good "reasons" why they think my tax dollars should be spent on feeding kids who otherwise have parents able to feed them.


So unless you misspoke, and meant, rather, you did not use statistics; as in, he failed to, then you defined the rules of argument.


No. I'm saying if he wants to 'earn' or make a valid point, throwing up out-of-context, biased, or otherwise slanted statistics is a waste of time. I'm saying - am trying to be as clear as possible here - Without context, definitions, source-questions/data, using mere or made-up statistics is NOT proving a point.

So - again...trying to be clear, so stay with me...If CH or anyone wants to claim school lunches are of benefit to society in a tangible or even meaningful way, some of the guidelines I presented must be met.

[Abbey Marie]

Meals, that's all we're discussing in THIS thread. Start a thread on schools taking any children to dental appointments and I'll join you in disagreeing with that.

Oh a couple comments were made earlier to that I want to address.

Yes, families SHOULD use SNAP to buy lunch for their kids if they are receiving that, but not every family that is receiving reduced priced or free lunches at school is on SNAP.

I got an idea, let's make poor kids wear signs that say "poor" on them, that was they are easier for the bullies to identify. I'm sure that more ass whippings and being made fun of will make sure they are not sucking up welfare.

No, we are discussing how schools are doing things some of us feel they shouldn't, and I have taken the time to show you how that ends up going places that I guess even you don't like.

I don't need anyone to tell me what I can or cannot post in a particular thread. I'm a grown up, and an intelligent one, and I am quite able to discern what a thread is about.

[ConHog]

No, we are discussing how schools are doing things some of us feel they shouldn't, and I have taken the time to show you how that ends up going places that I guess even you don't like.

I don't need anyone to tell me what I can or cannot post in a particular thread. I'm a grown up, and an intelligent one, and I am quite able to discern what a thread is about.

Stop, this is like the third time this week you've accused me of somehow trying to tell you what you can or can not post in a thread, and you know that simply isn't the case. You may not like my debate style, but you absolutely should know by know that I don't tell anyone who should post or who shouldn't or what they should say when they do.

[darin]

You shouldn't say that, CH...

:P


:poke::poke::poke:

[ConHog]

You shouldn't say that, CH...

:P


:poke::poke::poke:

shut up!!!

:poke::laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Stop, this is like the third time this week you've accused me of somehow trying to tell you what you can or can not post in a thread, and you know that simply isn't the case. You may not like my debate style, but you absolutely should know by know that I don't tell anyone who should post or who shouldn't or what they should say when they do.

Do you have me confused with someone else?

[ConHog]

Do you have me confused with someone else?

No ma'am I specifically remember another thread where you said I was trying to tell you how to post. Not trying to make a big deal of it, just saying, that's not how I roll. Yes, I'm a dick, but I don't tell others how to post. :lol:

[darin]

No ma'am I specifically remember another thread where you said I was trying to tell you how to post. Not trying to make a big deal of it, just saying, that's not how I roll. Yes, I'm a dick, but I don't tell others how to post. :lol:

Or...you can take this opportunity to re-evaluate your style. Could be Abbey is spot-on with her analysis - even IF it wasn't your intent. Might be a good time to examine the messages you send and how they are received; all in an effort to be clear. Make sense?

:cheers2:

[ConHog]

Or...you can take this opportunity to re-evaluate your style. Could be Abbey is spot-on with her analysis - even IF it wasn't your intent. Might be a good time to examine the messages you send and how they are received; all in an effort to be clear. Make sense?

:cheers2:

I've already admitted that my style is a bit ahem abrupt. Not as if I stand alone in that regard even in this august collection of posters.

I don't think I stand out as so much worse that I need to be constantly reevaluating my style as others remain the same.

[darin]

I am the type who wants to communicate as effectively as possible; I'd never hide behind my style if it meant slight adjustments of my style might-could thwart potential hard feelings or misunderstandings. That's just me, though.

;)

[Abbey Marie]

Con,
What I see is a person who cannot accept the slightest correction. You could have just responded to my point. Instead, you went kinda aggressive in style and told me I should stay on what you perceived as the topic, or post my thoughts elsewhere. That isn't debate.

Since this post is essentially a correction too, I guess I should prepare for incoming! :scared:

[DragonStryk72]

Condescension is preferred then? How about this; announce that you will no longer be providing breakfast or lunch at school at the beginning of next school year and then find out who shows up at school hungry. Once the actual need is identified inform DFACS that Johnny's family needs a little help in providing proper sustenance.



I'm pretty sure that the state sponsored karate lessons that you're school district will provide will allay those issues.

Um, FJ? What is it you think DFCS does, exactly? Because they do not help parents get on benefits, they just remove kids from "unfit" homes, and they put parents on monitoring. Let's see if I have this straight: Instead of doing the simpler and easier thing of providing some basic food at the place the kids have to be at , you instead want every school calling Child Services about their kids that didn't bring a lunch or lunch money? Clearly you've never worked in a school before, because this would completely swamp DFCS.

And what exactly do you propose we do with all the extra prepared food that, by law, has to be thrown out at the end of the day? Bear in mind it can not be given away, or taken home with faculty, it's gotta get dumpstered. We have a monumental amount of extra food, so giving some to the poor kids isn't going to change the food budget at all in schools. It will simply change how much is being thrown away, of good to no one.

You know why schools offer lunches? Because kids and faculty gotta eat, and some parents are horrific cooks (My buddy O'Toole's mom couldn't manage Oodles of Noodles.), while others are too busy working 1-4 jobs and just don't have enough time to prep a lunch. Sure, we could let all the kids off campus to snag something at McDonald's, but uh, aren't we talking in this thread about how that sort of food is detrimental to our children's health? Second, you would have kids leave and not return, which is a hassle for the school, or get injured/sick during the lunch period. Third, it's inefficient, and would waste valuable classroom time to the logistics of the thing. So, it's simply easier, and more convenient to have the cafeteria on premises, and if we've gotta have the cafeteria on premises, then there's extra food to be had, so we might as well make sure everyone's taken care of.

[jimnyc]

Meals, that's all we're discussing in THIS thread. Start a thread on schools taking any children to dental appointments and I'll join you in disagreeing with that.


Stop, this is like the third time this week you've accused me of somehow trying to tell you what you can or can not post in a thread, and you know that simply isn't the case. You may not like my debate style, but you absolutely should know by know that I don't tell anyone who should post or who shouldn't or what they should say when they do.

Sounded to me like you were "telling" her what was being discussed in THIS thread, and implying she should start another thread if she wanted to discuss a related yet different topic.

[ConHog]

Sounded to me like you were "telling" her what was being discussed in THIS thread, and implying she should start another thread if she wanted to discuss a related yet different topic.

this thread isnt about me, go start a flame in the appropriate forum and I'll be happy to join in.


:laugh2::dance::cool::lol:

[jimnyc]

Was just putting it out there how I "saw" it, and perhaps how Abbey did too. Sometimes its not always what one says, but how they say it!

And to place the thread back on topic...

Sounds to me like once again personal responsibility is failing. When I was in grammar school I brown bagged it. They offered a "hot lunch" that you paid for in advance. If you didn't pay, and didn't bring your own, you went hungry. If the school is going to intervene, they should be doing so by calling parents and finding out why these kids are going hungry. Instead, they just take over a part of parenting and expect me to pay for it. I'm sorry that a child may be hungry, but it shouldn't be MY responsibility when another parent can't take care of their kid. Damn government coddles half the nation while the other half pays for it. And then the coddled half complains that the other half should pay more in taxes so they can live better!

[ConHog]

Was just putting it out there how I "saw" it, and perhaps how Abbey did too. Sometimes its not always what one says, but how they say it!

my last remark was purely smart ass Jimmy.

Thought all the emotes made that obvious.


And to place the thread back on topic...

Sounds to me like once again personal responsibility is failing. When I was in grammar school I brown bagged it. They offered a "hot lunch" that you paid for in advance. If you didn't pay, and didn't bring your own, you went hungry. If the school is going to intervene, they should be doing so by calling parents and finding out why these kids are going hungry. Instead, they just take over a part of parenting and expect me to pay for it. I'm sorry that a child may be hungry, but it shouldn't be MY responsibility when another parent can't take care of their kid. Damn government coddles half the nation while the other half pays for it. And then the coddled half complains that the other half should pay more in taxes so they can live better!

DO you realize how little money we are talking here? It's a marginal percentage of a school's budget.

That being said, I would like to see some sort of system where those who receive the assistance do volunteer work at the school in exchange. Would that be acceptable to you? Okay we'll provide your kids lunch, and you'll come clean the hallways or something like that?

[Nukeman]

And to place the thread back on topic...

Sounds to me like once again personal responsibility is failing. When I was in grammar school I brown bagged it. They offered a "hot lunch" that you paid for in advance. If you didn't pay, and didn't bring your own, you went hungry. If the school is going to intervene, they should be doing so by calling parents and finding out why these kids are going hungry. Instead, they just take over a part of parenting and expect me to pay for it. I'm sorry that a child may be hungry, but it shouldn't be MY responsibility when another parent can't take care of their kid. Damn government coddles half the nation while the other half pays for it. And then the coddled half complains that the other half should pay more in taxes so they can live better!
But..But.. But.. Jim it's for the children!!! You know that old rally cry of the Libs.

don't get me wrong I am all for charity and helping to take care of less fortunate but... heres the rub MOST of those kids on free lunches and breakfasts ALREADY RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS AND ASSISTANCE. I have had this argument ad nauseam, it truely does make me sick and as long as we have the Con's ofthe world constantly making excuses for bad parents with the rallying cry of "its for the children" we will continue to have BAD PARENTS


DO you realize how little money we are talking here? It's a marginal percentage of a school's budget.

That being said, I would like to see some sort of system where those who receive the assistance do volunteer work at the school in exchange. Would that be acceptable to you? Okay we'll provide your kids lunch, and you'll come clean the hallways or something like that?You are talking ONE school district but when you add all the reduced/free lunches and breakfast around the country you are talking a NOT SO SMALL amount of money.....

[jimnyc]

DO you realize how little money we are talking here? It's a marginal percentage of a school's budget.

That being said, I would like to see some sort of system where those who receive the assistance do volunteer work at the school in exchange. Would that be acceptable to you? Okay we'll provide your kids lunch, and you'll come clean the hallways or something like that?

Every little project is little. Now add up how much money we spend yearly "taking care" of others. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Children need to learn responsibility and parents should be teaching it to their kids. Whether I add $1 a year to the pot or $500 shouldn't matter. Teach parents to be better parents instead of teaching the kids to live off the government.


But..But.. But.. Jim it's for the children!!! You know that old rally cry of the Libs.

don't get me wrong I am all for charity and helping to take care of less fortunate but... heres the rub MOST of those kids on free lunches and breakfasts ALREADY RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS AND ASSISTANCE. I have had this argument ad nauseam, it truely does make me sick and as long as we have the Con's ofthe world constantly making excuses for bad parents with the rallying cry of "its for the children" we will continue to have BAD PARENTS

There are so many families that see their kids as cash machines. 7 kids and you get lots of welfare and other government goodies. Then the parents don't parent, and now WE get to foot the bill for their little machines.

[ConHog]

But..But.. But.. Jim it's for the children!!! You know that old rally cry of the Libs.

don't get me wrong I am all for charity and helping to take care of less fortunate but... heres the rub MOST of those kids on free lunches and breakfasts ALREADY RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS AND ASSISTANCE. I have had this argument ad nauseam, it truely does make me sick and as long as we have the Con's ofthe world constantly making excuses for bad parents with the rallying cry of "its for the children" we will continue to have BAD PARENTS


At least in Arkansas. Most of the kids receive a reduced price, a FEW receive free. The threshold for receiving FREE lunches is the same as for receiving free lunches. The threshold for reduced price however is quite a bit higher, but still poverty.

I don't think as many people are sucking up free lunches as some of yall think.

We have a school board meeting next week. I'll try to get the exact data on just our little school just a point of reference.

PS I'm not a liberal, I just have a soft spot for kids . Has nothing to do with not being disgusted by parents who sponge off of welfare.

[Nukeman]

http://educationnext.org/fraud-in-the-lunchroom/

Found this just for you Con, you say its a small amount I say otherwise so do others...


Fill it out and turn it in: that’s the message thousands of school districts send parents each year when they offer applications for the federal government’s National School Lunch Program (NSLP). And each year, millions of parents comply. But new data suggest that the process for verifying eligibility for the program is fundamentally broken and that taxpayers may be picking up the tab for participation by ineligible families. The NSLP, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) at an annual cost of $8 billion, serves 31 million American children each day. The program’s goal is to help low-income students succeed in public and private school classrooms by ensuring they have adequate nutrition, a mission that is compromised if substantial funds are being spent on ineligible families or the program fails to reach the neediest students.
Determining the extent of program fraud and error is important, as the entitlement is associated with other streams of federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars. Eligibility data are widely used as proxies for poverty rates, thereby influencing funding for myriad government programs and informing both school district policies and policy research. For example, NSLP participation rates serve as the main criteria for the allocation of federal Title I funds to schools. Those schools with a higher percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch also receive a larger discount on the federal government’s E-Rate program, which facilitates access to telecommunications services for schools and libraries.


personally 8 billion dollars jsut for free lunch and breakfast for a group of kids whose parents are already receiving WIC and food stamps is NOT a drop in the bucket, Its a damn big hole in the bucket fo waste......

[ConHog]

Every little project is little. Now add up how much money we spend yearly "taking care" of others. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Children need to learn responsibility and parents should be teaching it to their kids. Whether I add $1 a year to the pot or $500 shouldn't matter. Teach parents to be better parents instead of teaching the kids to live off the government.

Jim listen to yourself, how is telling a kid they can't have lunch because their parents are fucktards going to teach THEM anything? It won't , it's just being mean. You talk about what's right? What's right is not punishing the kid for the sin of the father.

BUT here's the theory behind free meals.

USUALLY the kids who receive free meals come from homes where the parent(s) just don't give a shit. They don't care if the kid eats, they don't even care if the kid goes to school. Now we all know that most kids aren't going to school if a parent doesn't make them right? And we can all agree that education is the key to getting people out of that lifestyle right? So logic would dictate that it is society's best interest to keep kids in school, right?

Okay then if a kid isn't getting fed at home and he knows he can get something to eat at school, hey guess what? He's likely to get his ass to school, if not for anything else but to get something to eat. And hey once there, we might actually get him to learn something.

Do soome people abuse this? Absolutely; but do some actually take the help offered and make something better of themselves, and then when they have kids those kids aren't on welfare? Yep, it happens, ALL the time.

It's an investment now to hopefully save tax dollars in the future.


http://educationnext.org/fraud-in-the-lunchroom/

Found this just for you Con, you say its a small amount I say otherwise so do others...



personally 8 billion dollars jsut for free lunch and breakfast for a group of kids whose parents are already receiving WIC and food stamps is NOT a drop in the bucket, Its a damn big hole in the bucket fo waste......

Now you're talking about fraud and waste. Both of which I completely agree should be put to an end. I would almost bet money that we could feed teh same number of kids for half the money or less if we did so.

[Nukeman]

Now you're talking about fraud and waste. Both of which I completely agree should be put to an end. I would almost bet money that we could feed teh same number of kids for half the money or less if we did so.
That is what this entire thread has been about, the WASTE and the FRAUD involved with these children getting something for free just because their parents are a bunch of morons.

From the time I was 8 years old I got myself up, ate breakfast, washed my hair, got dressed and got on the bus. Now my parents BOTH worked 2 jobs in order to have food in the house, my mom made sure we had lunch money every Monday for school (5.00 for 5 lunches). They really haven't gone up that much over the last 30 years. In fact I think we pay 1.65 for our kids each day..

Know what happened if I lost my money on the way to school?? I DIDN'T GET A LUNCH, because my parents worked to damn much and tough shit on me for losing my money... So yaa I look at this a fraud, waste, and plain lazyness on the worthless parents, should the kids have to suffer for poor parents yes and no. If we make it easy for the parents and they know there will always be this safety net with no reprecussions if used they will continue to SUCK, if they have to work or help in the making of those free meal maybe just maybe we can save some money and the kids that actually need the service will get it instead of all the others.

On a side note one of my sons friends receive free lunches and breakfast, both parents work the have a nice house ON THE LAKE, 2 nice cars yet no money for lunch. hmmmm why is that????

[logroller]

But..But.. But.. Jim it's for the children!!! You know that old rally cry of the Libs.

don't get me wrong I am all for charity and helping to take care of less fortunate but... heres the rub MOST of those kids on free lunches and breakfasts ALREADY RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS AND ASSISTANCE. I have had this argument ad nauseam, it truely does make me sick and as long as we have the Con's ofthe world constantly making excuses for bad parents with the rallying cry of "its for the children" we will continue to have BAD PARENTS
Well the kids get the free lunch, not the parents who got the food stamps; and not every person who gets free/reduced lunch gets food stamps. We had bad parenting before free lunches...so how would removing that solve the bad parenting problem? I'm reminded of the mom who sent her kid to school without proper apparel for winter weather after he got kicked off the bus-- hypothermia, that'll teach 'em responsibility, right?


There are so many families that see their kids as cash machines. 7 kids and you get lots of welfare and other government goodies. Then the parents don't parent, and now WE get to foot the bill for their little machines.

Its interesting how people frame the issue. Sure there are bad parents, no one contests this; but from an legislative/administrative POV, its about how to best teach these kids the fundamentals, isn't it? Reading, writing etc...

Please show me a written code, rule or standard which instructs the teaching of personal responsibility within public education. Something tells me won't find one, b/c that's what the parents are supposed to do.

[ConHog]

"ahahhahhahahah I'll teach you a lesson about your dad being welfare, no lunch for you."

[Nukeman]

Well the kids get the free lunch, not the parents who got the food stamps; and not every person who gets free/reduced lunch gets food stamps. We had bad parenting before free lunches...so how would removing that solve the bad parenting problem? I'm reminded of the mom who sent her kid to school without proper apparel for winter weather after he got kicked off the bus-- hypothermia, that'll teach 'em responsibility, right?



Its interesting how people frame the issue. Sure there are bad parents, no one contests this; but from an legislative/administrative POV, its about how to best teach these kids the fundamentals, isn't it? Reading, writing etc...

Please show me a written code, rule or standard which instructs the teaching of personal responsibility within public education. Something tells me won't find one, b/c that's what the parents are supposed to do.
Exactly, but by making everything free we take away the RESPONSIBILITY of the parent, they are no longer responsibile for the basic needs of their own chidren. that breeds lazyness and a "give me more free shit" mentality.

Where does it stop, when is enough, enough!! Where do you draw the line?? i am sure someoned else will draw it further than you so it NEVER STOPS........


"ahahhahhahahah I'll teach you a lesson about your dad being welfare, no lunch for you."
To quote a friend of mine.

"Its a hard world, full of hard choices, we all have a problems get over it". Now that seams rather harsh on the surface but it has a lot of truth to it...

[ConHog]

Exactly, but by making everything free we take away the RESPONSIBILITY of the parent, they are no longer responsibile for the basic needs of their own chidren. that breeds lazyness and a "give me more free shit" mentality.

Where does it stop, when is enough, enough!! Where do you draw the line?? i am sure someoned else will draw it further than you so it NEVER STOPS........

Exactly the opposite. By giving them a reason to come to school we encourage them to take full advantage of the opportunity and better themselves so they don't remain in the same life.


To quote a friend of mine.

"Its a hard world, full of hard choices, we all have a problems get over it". Now that seams rather harsh on the surface but it has a lot of truth to it...

Choices? DOes a kid CHOOSE for his parents to be on welfare? LOL Jesus Christ.

[Nukeman]

Exactly the opposite. By giving them a reason to come to school we encourage them to take full advantage of the opportunity and better themselves so they don't remain in the same life.I say bullshit.. Here is why most of those kids in those situations are the one that also benefit from "free" or "reduced" college education yet MOST roughly 80-90% NEVER take full advantage.

I know in Indiana we have "21st century scholars" you have to be a certain income level to qualify that is a FULL RIDE IN STATE TUITION at a state school. the demographic it is aimed at rarely use it for its intended purpose but hey its ONLY money and we gave these kids free lunches to get them to go to college and then gave them free college that they used for a year or 2 than dropped out and they are making more money be having kids and throwing them in the system.

IT NEVER F***ING ENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Choices? DOes a kid CHOOSE for his parents to be on welfare? LOL Jesus Christ.
NO but the parent makes choices as to whether or not he buys cigs and beer or food for his kids, if chooses the first than we remove the child from his home and plaxce him in foster care......

laugh all you want but like I said/asked.. Where is your line in the sand?? Where do you think it should stop? I guarentee that whereever it may be another will want to draw it further than you.......

No matter where it ends someone is going to get hurt or have issues, the question is who has the balls to say enough already and it needs to stop....:poke:

[ConHog]

I say bullshit.. Here is why most of those kids in those situations are the one that also benefit from "free" or "reduced" college education yet MOST roughly 80-90% NEVER take full advantage.

I know in Indiana we have "21st century scholars" you have to be a certain income level to qualify that is a FULL RIDE IN STATE TUITION at a state school. the demographic it is aimed at rarely use it for its intended purpose but hey its ONLY money and we gave these kids free lunches to get them to go to college and then gave them free college that they used for a year or 2 than dropped out and they are making more money be having kids and throwing them in the system.

IT NEVER F***ING ENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


so you throw those who are fraudulently using the system in jail . you don't take the system that IS helping those who actually take advantage away though. NO ONE is denying that assholes abuse the help offered. But if you are honestly saying that NO honest people are helped in a positive way then I'm dismissing you as not being serious in this thread.

[fj1200]

Um, FJ? What is it you think DFCS does, exactly? Because they do not help parents get on benefits, they just remove kids from "unfit" homes, and they put parents on monitoring. Let's see if I have this straight: Instead of doing the simpler and easier thing of providing some basic food at the place the kids have to be at , you instead want every school calling Child Services about their kids that didn't bring a lunch or lunch money? Clearly you've never worked in a school before, because this would completely swamp DFCS.

With all due respect you miss the point. First, my apologies for misidentifying the proper agency that can provide food and perhaps a little bit of education on the matter of breakfast and lunch, but second, the idea is that without the coddling of parents by continually removing responsibility from them they may actually step up and be parents and providers and educators to their children of how to make sure that they are able to take care of themselves. My oldest in third grade takes his lunch every day to school and is in charge of packing it himself, not that he makes is successful every time, but he gets a lunch and doesn't rely on the school to eat.


And what exactly do you propose we do with all the extra prepared food that, by law, has to be thrown out at the end of the day? Bear in mind it can not be given away, or taken home with faculty, it's gotta get dumpstered. We have a monumental amount of extra food, so giving some to the poor kids isn't going to change the food budget at all in schools. It will simply change how much is being thrown away, of good to no one.

I'm not even sure the relevance of that.


You know why schools offer lunches? Because kids and faculty gotta eat, and some parents are horrific cooks (My buddy O'Toole's mom couldn't manage Oodles of Noodles.), while others are too busy working 1-4 jobs and just don't have enough time to prep a lunch. Sure, we could let all the kids off campus to snag something at McDonald's, but uh, aren't we talking in this thread about how that sort of food is detrimental to our children's health? Second, you would have kids leave and not return, which is a hassle for the school, or get injured/sick during the lunch period. Third, it's inefficient, and would waste valuable classroom time to the logistics of the thing. So, it's simply easier, and more convenient to have the cafeteria on premises, and if we've gotta have the cafeteria on premises, then there's extra food to be had, so we might as well make sure everyone's taken care of.

How many schools do NOT provide lunches? Kids still manage to eat and so do the faculty and staff. Why do you fall into the trap that if these things are not provided that mass starvation will occur? My issue is that we create massive programs that must encompass all which in reality only need to be tweaked to help out the few. Do you really think that having a cafeteria with all the cooking requirements and the staff and logistics that go with it are central to the core competency of a school providing education?

Cooking? We're talking about a sandwich or a Lunchable.

[ConHog]

NO but the parent makes choices as to whether or not he buys cigs and beer or food for his kids, if chooses the first than we remove the child from his home and plaxce him in foster care......

laugh all you want but like I said/asked.. Where is your line in the sand?? Where do you think it should stop? I guarentee that whereever it may be another will want to draw it further than you.......

No matter where it ends someone is going to get hurt or have issues, the question is who has the balls to say enough already and it needs to stop....:poke:


LOL so you're solution is rather than spend $8B (and we both agree that number should be cut in half at least) that we should instead take kids away from their parents and then PAY foster parents to raise them (you do realize the government pays for the care of foster kids right?)

That doesn't save you any money, AND taking a child away from his parents isn't teaching that kid a lesson. You are punishing the kid for something the parents did (or or in this case did NOT do.)

[Nukeman]

so you throw those who are fraudulently using the system in jail . you don't take the system that IS helping those who actually take advantage away though. NO ONE is denying that assholes abuse the help offered. But if you are honestly saying that NO honest people are helped in a positive way then I'm dismissing you as not being serious in this thread.So we throw the idiot parents in jail where it cost even more money!! I have never stated that "no child should receive" this or that, what I and others have been saying is that this a parental issue on most accounts and needs to be addressed as one instead of putting a "food bandaid" on the underlying issue, you and those that refuse to see it as that are the ones creating a massive group of "give me's" and thats it,

Sure there are a few that ACTUALLY need the help but the vast majority do not!!! the school lunches are NOT that expensive, especialy for what the kids get. I have 3 in regular school and 1 in college right now I know how much I spend on their food and if your telling me that a parent cant come up with 20 dallars a month for 9 months (roughly 200.00$ for the school year) for those meals your fooling yourself and I would just as quickly dismiss you as being over sensitive!!!


LOL so you're solution is rather than spend $8B (and we both agree that number should be cut in half at least) that we should instead take kids away from their parents and then PAY foster parents to raise them (you do realize the government pays for the care of foster kids right?)

That doesn't save you any money, AND taking a child away from his parents isn't teaching that kid a lesson. You are punishing the kid for something the parents did (or or in this case did NOT do.)Yes.. Yes I do and that money is given to take care of those kids and at least that money is going to the children that ACTUALLY NEED IT.... (about 18.00 a day) as for taking the kid away from his parents! I would have to say they really arent parents if they cant supply the basics needed to take care of their children....

[ConHog]

So we throw the idiot parents in jail where it cost even more money!! I have never stated that "no child should receive" this or that, what I and others have been saying is that this a parental issue on most accounts and needs to be addressed as one instead of putting a "food bandaid" on the underlying issue, you and those that refuse to see it as that are the ones creating a massive group of "give me's" and thats it,

Sure there are a few that ACTUALLY need the help but the vast majority do not!!! the school lunches are NOT that expensive, especialy for what the kids get. I have 3 in regular school and 1 in college right now I know how much I spend on their food and if your telling me that a parent cant come up with 20 dallars a month for 9 months (roughly 200.00$ for the school year) for those meals your fooling yourself and I would just as quickly dismiss you as being over sensitive!!!

Parents who are abusing the system? Yes , throw them in jail. Same with ANYONE who is abusing any sort of welfare. But using the system and abusing it are not the same thing.

And I also agree that in many cases parents are getting help they don't need. Fine up the standards, that still isn't the same thing as eliminating a program altogether.

Oh, and I am sensitive to making sure kids get lunch. I'd vote to shut down our football program before I'd vote to do away with the free lunch program. They are kids.

[logroller]

NO but the parent makes choices as to whether or not he buys cigs and beer or food for his kids, if chooses the first than we remove the child from his home and plaxce him in foster care......

laugh all you want but like I said/asked.. Where is your line in the sand?? Where do you think it should stop? I guarentee that whereever it may be another will want to draw it further than you.......

No matter where it ends someone is going to get hurt or have issues, the question is who has the balls to say enough already and it needs to stop....:poke:
You assume there aren't those in foster care who would do the exact thing.





How many schools do NOT provide lunches? Kids still manage to eat and so do the faculty and staff. Why do you fall into the trap that if these things are not provided that mass starvation will occur? My issue is that we create massive programs that must encompass all which in reality only need to be tweaked to help out the few. Do you really think that having a cafeteria with all the cooking requirements and the staff and logistics that go with it are central to the core competency of a school providing education?

I could say the same thing for mandating a minimum number of instructional minutes. The old adage, you can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink, applies well here. Schools, govt et al, are bound by certain constitutional limitations, esp. due process/equal protection. The amount of paperwork and subsequent time required to do anything on a case-by-case basis leaves all but the most extreme cases unattended-- so you get sweeping legislation instead. Not because its functionally more effective, but because its more efficiently created. Again, this is a critique of institutionalization, and another reason why the Feds shouldn't fund educational institutions. But that's not to say feeding kids is without merit; it just needs to be addressed at the state level, with independent monitoring by the feds. I thought that's how a republic was supposed to operate.

[ConHog]

You assume there aren't those in foster care who would do the exact thing.


I could say the same thing for mandating a minimum number of instructional minutes. The old adage, you can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink, applies well here. Schools, govt et al, are bound by certain constitutional limitations, esp. due process/equal protection. The amount of paperwork and subsequent time required to do anything on a case-by-case basis leaves all but the most extreme cases unattended-- so you get sweeping legislation instead. Not because its functionally more effective, but because its more efficiently created. Again, this is a critique of institutionalization, and another reason why the Feds shouldn't fund educational institutions. But that's not to say feeding kids is without merit; it just needs to be addressed at the state level, with independent monitoring by the feds. I thought that's how a republic was supposed to operate.

A perfectly reasonable solution and I can tell you most involved with schools would love to see the DoE reigned in but kept in place a a federal oversight.

[MtnBiker]

A better solution would be to eliminate the Department of Education. States can educate without the federal government involved.

[ConHog]

A better solution would be to eliminate the Department of Education. States can educate without the federal government involved.

They COULD but then you have states like Mississipppi even more blatantly declaring that football is more important than learning. Federal oversight is a good thing.

[darin]

Last word! I has it!

[fj1200]

I could say the same thing for mandating a minimum number of instructional minutes. The old adage, you can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink, applies well here. Schools, govt et al, are bound by certain constitutional limitations, esp. due process/equal protection. The amount of paperwork and subsequent time required to do anything on a case-by-case basis leaves all but the most extreme cases unattended-- so you get sweeping legislation instead. Not because its functionally more effective, but because its more efficiently created. Again, this is a critique of institutionalization, and another reason why the Feds shouldn't fund educational institutions. But that's not to say feeding kids is without merit; it just needs to be addressed at the state level, with independent monitoring by the feds. I thought that's how a republic was supposed to operate.

So you're against the governmentally imposed monopoly on education as well? :beer:

[SassyLady]

My granddaughter is in the 7th grade and my grandson is in the 4th. Neither of them have ever attended a public school (in charter schools) and their schools have no cafeteria. All parents have to provide lunch; no ifs, ands or buts. If they forget to bring it/make it, there are no backup lunches...they do without. One of the first lessons these schools teach is personal responsibility and that they are not there to coddle anyone. I propose that all cafeterias be closed.

PS...my grandson won first place last night at his science fair, so missing a lunch here or there has not affected his ability to learn and excel.

[ConHog]

So you're against the governmentally imposed monopoly on education as well? :beer:


There is of course no such monopoly. You're free to send your child to public/private school OR home school them. I guess it's true that the government mandates that you can't simply not educate your children, but that's probably a good thing.


My granddaughter is in the 7th grade and my grandson is in the 4th. Neither of them have ever attended a public school (in charter schools) and their schools have no cafeteria. All parents have to provide lunch; no ifs, ands or buts. If they forget to bring it/make it, there are no backup lunches...they do without. One of the first lessons these schools teach is personal responsibility and that they are not there to coddle anyone. I propose that all cafeterias be closed.

PS...my grandson won first place last night at his science fair, so missing a lunch here or there has not affected his ability to learn and excel.

First of all congrats to your grandson.

Second of all, I think we all know there is a difference between missing an occasional lunch and not having lunch on a regular basis. So your anecdote, while cute, doesn't apply.

[darin]

Nobody's mind knows they didn't eat lunch. "LUNCH" is not the key to anything people. Think about this; stop the logical fallacies.

Some of you are prophesying over kids; proclaiming their 'distractions from a hungry belly' and somehow converting that into guesses on their academic performance. Balderdash!

Our bodies are not regulated by the labels we apply to the meals we eat. You folk are basing your arguments, in large part, attempting to tug at heart strings with no evidence your claims/fears are rational.

As I've shown - and nobody not in agreement has been able to argue-down - school lunch programs are not proven helpful. They are a waste of tax dollars. Further, the practice re-enforces bad parenting.

[Jess]

Nobody's mind knows they didn't eat lunch. "LUNCH" is not the key to anything people. Think about this; stop the logical fallacies.

Some of you are prophesying over kids; proclaiming their 'distractions from a hungry belly' and somehow converting that into guesses on their academic performance. Balderdash!

Our bodies are not regulated by the labels we apply to the meals we eat. You folk are basing your arguments, in large part, attempting to tug at heart strings with no evidence your claims/fears are rational.

As I've shown - and nobody not in agreement has been able to argue-down - school lunch programs are not proven helpful. They are a waste of tax dollars. Further, the practice re-enforces bad parenting.

Since this has been a hot topic, I looked at the cafeteria as I was walking the minions to assembly. The cafeteria was pretty much packed. But a majority of the kids seem to be well-clothed, put-together ... definitely not what one would describe as needy or underfed.

It occurs to me that perhaps as I think has been pointed out, the fact of the program being there encourages parents to be lazy. They may pay for the breakfasts and pay full price, as opposed to those who get a discount or free breakfast/lunch but is it necessary? My kids would definitely qualify for discounted/free breakfast and/or lunch but I find it a point of responsibility that I/we provide for them. Our breakfasts and lunches may not be the fanciest but they are basically healthy (they even take a veggie in their lunch ;)) and I know what they are eating. Our boys make their own lunches under supervision, of course, so they eat it better and they take on some responsibility for themselves.

Why have kids if you're gonna have somebody else take care of them? Never understood that.

[Intense]

I'm mixed. I've seen from the housing projects around NYC, kids that are not fed at home, if not for School Programs, they would be in trouble, something that would force the hand of Child Services, for better or worse. The Breakfast?Lunch programs are a crutch, that does lead to dependency, true. There is a real problem and it is compound. Another factor to consider in wasted money, is an inventory in how much gets thrown out by the kid's uneaten, untouched. There is allot of waste. One thing is for sure, One size fit's all, centralized planning does not work.

[darin]

Why have kids if you're gonna have somebody else take care of them? Never understood that.

I am blessed to the point of sending my kids with as much or as little food as they want. I'm sure food banks would love more support to provide for the families of those who aren't as blessed/hard-working as me and my wife. Let private charity do their job; remove charity operations from the public sector - in doing so, you'll reduce my tax burden - allowing me to give MORE to charities - both local and across the nation.

Therein lies the problem: Governments tend to crave money. Governments get their feelings hurt if somebody OTHER than them gets money - which government officials tend to equate (for good reason) with power.



I'm mixed. I've seen from the housing projects around NYC, kids that are not fed at home, if not for School Programs, they would be in trouble, something that would force the hand of Child Services, for better or worse. The Breakfast?Lunch programs are a crutch, that does lead to dependency, true. There is a real problem and it is compound. Another factor to consider in wasted money, is an inventory in how much gets thrown out by the kid's uneaten, untouched. There is allot of waste. One thing is for sure, One size fit's all, centralized planning does not work.

Absolutely right. I'm all for helping the needy - too often our tax dollars get wasted on the 'want-y' - those who simply WANT a free ride; as opposed to those who truly NEED a free ride for awhile.

[fj1200]

There is of course no such monopoly. You're free to send your child to public/private school OR home school them. I guess it's true that the government mandates that you can't simply not educate your children, but that's probably a good thing.

:laugh: Tell that to those who do not have the means to utilize private schools nor the time to home school. My point was irrefutable, even you said that you're own district couldn't support charter schools due to various factors.

[ConHog]

Since this has been a hot topic, I looked at the cafeteria as I was walking the minions to assembly. The cafeteria was pretty much packed. But a majority of the kids seem to be well-clothed, put-together ... definitely not what one would describe as needy or underfed.

It occurs to me that perhaps as I think has been pointed out, the fact of the program being there encourages parents to be lazy. They may pay for the breakfasts and pay full price, as opposed to those who get a discount or free breakfast/lunch but is it necessary? My kids would definitely qualify for discounted/free breakfast and/or lunch but I find it a point of responsibility that I/we provide for them. Our breakfasts and lunches may not be the fanciest but they are basically healthy (they even take a veggie in their lunch ;)) and I know what they are eating. Our boys make their own lunches under supervision, of course, so they eat it better and they take on some responsibility for themselves.

Why have kids if you're gonna have somebody else take care of them? Never understood that.

so you actually advocate just doing away with school provided lunches altogether, not just the "welfare meals?"


Not sure how I feel about that to be honest. While it is true that in an ideal world that isn't really a school's responsibility. I think we all can all agree that in today's world most families need the convenience of just giving the kid $10 for school provided lunches or whatever.

I blame feminists, if they wouldn't have made stay at home mom's feel like they weren't worthy, that would have prevented a lot of our social ills from happening.

And no, I'm NOT saying a woman's place is in the kitchen. I'm making a larger point. Some of you perhaps have read my thoughts on that elsewhere, but it's not really the subject of this thread, so I'll stop there. Suffice to say, I would probably be okay with NO school lunches.

[darin]

I blame feminists, if they wouldn't have made stay at home mom's feel like they weren't worthy, that would have prevented a lot of our social ills from happening.

And no, I'm NOT saying a woman's place is in the kitchen.

I agree with you in principle. Couple that with our citizens 'demands' for higher wages; without thinking twice about the then-higher-costs and we have what we have today: Inflation and struggling. Oh - toss on a dallop of revolving credit debt and yeah - two-income families are the norm, sadly.

But. Here's the But. Parents have a choice. Everyone has choices. Despite working schedules and tiredness, parents OWE it to their kids to ensure the kids are fed adquately. That's not to say "every time somebody says it's lunch time a kid MUST eat". It's to say 'hunger' is a systematic problem. "Being hungry" is an instance. For an instance, most kids can miss a meal. :)

Most people can, for that matter.

Back to choices - My wife's last dance is about midnight; sometimes later. She gets home between midnight and 2am. After she washes off the remaining glitter, she gets to bed - maybe - about 2:30-3am. She Chooses to rise up to her knees, and pushes herself up off the mattress and down onto the floor - as she puts her little toes into fuzzy slippers, promptly at 0630. She does this to ensure our daughter is up and ready for school. My wife then stands there, and watches / attends to our daughter as the kid waits for the school bus. Back in bed, sometimes, for a 30 minute quicky until she repeats for our son. Thus, her bed life is a series of ups and downs. In and outs. Of bed.

Choices. My wife made the choice to work her body all night for extra income, and then wear herself out in bed, what with the crazy sleep patterns.

If WE can do this. If SHE can do what it takes, anybody can. While my wife is a special breed of woman, she's only human. Just like anyone else. No superpowers I can speak of on a family-friendly forum.

[Noir]

If someone believes the food their child is getting in school is not healthy/good enough, then send your kids to school with prepared meals that are to your satisfaction.
Simple.

[darin]

If someone believes the food their child is getting in school is not healthy/good enough, then send your kids to school with prepared meals that are to your satisfaction.
Simple.

Even simpler - send your kid to the school with a meal that meets your requirements. :)

[ConHog]

I agree with you in principle. Couple that with our citizens 'demands' for higher wages; without thinking twice about the then-higher-costs and we have what we have today: Inflation and struggling. Oh - toss on a dallop of revolving credit debt and yeah - two-income families are the norm, sadly.

But. Here's the But. Parents have a choice. Everyone has choices. Despite working schedules and tiredness, parents OWE it to their kids to ensure the kids are fed adquately. That's not to say "every time somebody says it's lunch time a kid MUST eat". It's to say 'hunger' is a systematic problem. "Being hungry" is an instance. For an instance, most kids can miss a meal. :)

Most people can, for that matter.

Back to choices - My wife's last dance is about midnight; sometimes later. She gets home between midnight and 2am. After she washes off the remaining glitter, she gets to bed - maybe - about 2:30-3am. She Chooses to rise up to her knees, and pushes herself up off the mattress and down onto the floor - as she puts her little toes into fuzzy slippers, promptly at 0630. She does this to ensure our daughter is up and ready for school. My wife then stands there, and watches / attends to our daughter as the kid waits for the school bus. Back in bed, sometimes, for a 30 minute quicky until she repeats for our son. Thus, her bed life is a series of ups and downs. In and outs. Of bed.

Choices. My wife made the choice to work her body all night for extra income, and then wear herself out in bed, what with the crazy sleep patterns.

If WE can do this. If SHE can do what it takes, anybody can. While my wife is a special breed of woman, she's only human. Just like anyone else. No superpowers I can speak of on a family-friendly forum.


Look we agree that many CHOOSE not to make sacrifices that they probably SHOULD make. But in the meantime we need to face realities. A sad reality is that many a parent see schools as day cares which by God not only have to take care of their children for 10 hours a day and provide for all their needs, but also ones that can't actually discipline said children. The choices are either tell those people to fuck off or to deal with it the best we can. That's why schools must have police on campus now, nurses on staff, cafeterias, sports teams, after school activities, and a myriad of other things. Back when Laura Engal was a a teacher your ass learned to read , write, and do math and that was ALL the school provided, but those days are long gone my friend. Never to return.

[Abbey Marie]

...and the aforementioned trips to the dentist, free preschool, all sorts of counseling and interventionists, etc.

All for kids whose parents can't even be bothered to show up for a single teacher conference, open house, tours, kids' performances, and on an on.

[gabosaurus]

...and the aforementioned trips to the dentist, free preschool, all sorts of counseling and interventionists, etc.

All for kids whose parents can't even be bothered to show up for a single teacher conference, open house, tours, kids' performances, and on an on.

Pretty sad, isn't it?
I have dealt with bratty kids whose parents refuse to answer or return phone calls, refuse certified letters and appear to care zero about their child's performance or behavior in school.
Until we petition the court to remand their child to juvenile detention. Then they lawyer up and come at us. :rolleyes:

[Abbey Marie]

Pretty sad, isn't it?
I have dealt with bratty kids whose parents refuse to answer or return phone calls, refuse certified letters and appear to care zero about their child's performance or behavior in school.
Until we petition the court to remand their child to juvenile detention. Then they lawyer up and come at us. :rolleyes:

Gabby, God bless you, I couldn't do what you do. I don't have the patience!

[ConHog]

...and the aforementioned trips to the dentist, free preschool, all sorts of counseling and interventionists, etc.

All for kids whose parents can't even be bothered to show up for a single teacher conference, open house, tours, kids' performances, and on an on.

So feed the kids lunch and go after the parents for being bad parents. Doing one doesn't preclude you from doing the other.

[DragonStryk72]

But..But.. But.. Jim it's for the children!!! You know that old rally cry of the Libs.

don't get me wrong I am all for charity and helping to take care of less fortunate but... heres the rub MOST of those kids on free lunches and breakfasts ALREADY RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS AND ASSISTANCE. I have had this argument ad nauseam, it truely does make me sick and as long as we have the Con's ofthe world constantly making excuses for bad parents with the rallying cry of "its for the children" we will continue to have BAD PARENTS

You are talking ONE school district but when you add all the reduced/free lunches and breakfast around the country you are talking a NOT SO SMALL amount of money.....

I love that my points were skipped so everyone can continue taking a shot at CH, that the food budget for the school wouldn't change, that not every parent has the TIME in the morning to make lunch because they have jobs (Or are doing Labor Ready for extra money, meaning they're out the door before 3 am), and oh yeah, the school has to get the food anyhow, and ends up just throwing it out, thus completely and utterly wasting it as opposed to using it to help feed some kids.

Now let's have another talk, this time about food stamps. Food stamps takes into account that the kids will be receiving free or reduced cost lunches at school. It's part of the equation that goes into how much is being given to the families, so what you're proposing is now raising the food stamps allotment, likely by more than what would be done at school. Now, the school still has to order the same amount of food daily, cause you know, the kid still attends the school, but now the kid brings his lunch off the extra food stamp money, since EBT cards don't work in school cafeterias, so we've managed to do some shift over on where the food money comes from, but otherwise, we've just wasted a ton of food at school.

Seems to me the school lunches are more controlled, since it's the school that determines the lunch menu, and thus the kid is likely going to eat healthier than whatever's being sent from home, as I've seen the shopping lists of families on food stamps, and since there really isn't that much to go around, they end up buying whatever's cheap to get the biggest band for their buck, as opposed to health concerns.

Now, as to the actual topic of the thread, that being the whole point that we're using genetically engineered proteins in almost all of our food, along with making genetically engineered corn that exudes insecticides, does anyone have an opinion, or should a new thread be started for the tangent?

[ConHog]

I love that my points were skipped so everyone can continue taking a shot at CH, that the food budget for the school wouldn't change, that not every parent has the TIME in the morning to make lunch because they have jobs (Or are doing Labor Ready for extra money, meaning they're out the door before 3 am), and oh yeah, the school has to get the food anyhow, and ends up just throwing it out, thus completely and utterly wasting it as opposed to using it to help feed some kids.

Now let's have another talk, this time about food stamps. Food stamps takes into account that the kids will be receiving free or reduced cost lunches at school. It's part of the equation that goes into how much is being given to the families, so what you're proposing is now raising the food stamps allotment, likely by more than what would be done at school. Now, the school still has to order the same amount of food daily, cause you know, the kid still attends the school, but now the kid brings his lunch off the extra food stamp money, since EBT cards don't work in school cafeterias, so we've managed to do some shift over on where the food money comes from, but otherwise, we've just wasted a ton of food at school.

Seems to me the school lunches are more controlled, since it's the school that determines the lunch menu, and thus the kid is likely going to eat healthier than whatever's being sent from home, as I've seen the shopping lists of families on food stamps, and since there really isn't that much to go around, they end up buying whatever's cheap to get the biggest band for their buck, as opposed to health concerns.

Now, as to the actual topic of the thread, that being the whole point that we're using genetically engineered proteins in almost all of our food, along with making genetically engineered corn that exudes insecticides, does anyone have an opinion, or should a new thread be started for the tangent?

Here's an opinion on that. There is a direct correlation between 9 lb chicken breasts becoming available at wal mart and almost every 15 y/o girl having huge tits. It can't be healthy to be eating all that shit.

Unfortunately the alternative is usually either very expensive organic food or limited food options.

[fj1200]

I love that my points were skipped so everyone can continue taking a shot at CH, that the food budget for the school wouldn't change, that not every parent has the TIME in the morning to make lunch because they have jobs (Or are doing Labor Ready for extra money, meaning they're out the door before 3 am), and oh yeah, the school has to get the food anyhow, and ends up just throwing it out, thus completely and utterly wasting it as opposed to using it to help feed some kids.

Now let's have another talk, this time about food stamps. Food stamps takes into account that the kids will be receiving free or reduced cost lunches at school. It's part of the equation that goes into how much is being given to the families, so what you're proposing is now raising the food stamps allotment, likely by more than what would be done at school. Now, the school still has to order the same amount of food daily, cause you know, the kid still attends the school, but now the kid brings his lunch off the extra food stamp money, since EBT cards don't work in school cafeterias, so we've managed to do some shift over on where the food money comes from, but otherwise, we've just wasted a ton of food at school.

Seems to me the school lunches are more controlled, since it's the school that determines the lunch menu, and thus the kid is likely going to eat healthier than whatever's being sent from home, as I've seen the shopping lists of families on food stamps, and since there really isn't that much to go around, they end up buying whatever's cheap to get the biggest band for their buck, as opposed to health concerns.

Now, as to the actual topic of the thread, that being the whole point that we're using genetically engineered proteins in almost all of our food, along with making genetically engineered corn that exudes insecticides, does anyone have an opinion, or should a new thread be started for the tangent?

We didn't skip your points to take some shots at CH, although that is fun, it's because IMO it isn't relative. If there are less kids eating lunch, or none, then the correct amount of food will be prepared/served and little will be thrown out.

Do you have a link for that? Because it seems that they would be increasing the allowance over the summer when school is out. But even if it is true, then go ahead and increase SNAP. Increasing mandates on schools takes away from their purpose of education.

An interesting history of school lunches:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/national_school_lunch/7487#HISTORY

And if that wasn't enough, we now have an after school snack program (http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_food_and_nutrition_programs/18762/pa_food_and_nutrition_-_afterschool_snack_program/646110). Is there any more evidence required that what seems like a good idea won't expand beyond original intentions?

Our local PS has maybe 90% on free/reduced lunch so apparently money is pretty tight for the families that go there, so what does the principal do? She has a candy cart that sells candy to the supposedly poor and impoverished never mind the nutritional arguments that go along with that. Does that sound logical?

[ConHog]

We didn't skip your points to take some shots at CH, although that is fun, it's because IMO it isn't relative. If there are less kids eating lunch, or none, then the correct amount of food will be prepared/served and little will be thrown out.

Do you have a link for that? Because it seems that they would be increasing the allowance over the summer when school is out. But even if it is true, then go ahead and increase SNAP. Increasing mandates on schools takes away from their purpose of education.

An interesting history of school lunches:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/national_school_lunch/7487#HISTORY

And if that wasn't enough, we now have an after school snack program (http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_food_and_nutrition_programs/18762/pa_food_and_nutrition_-_afterschool_snack_program/646110). Is there any more evidence required that what seems like a good idea won't expand beyond original intentions?

Our local PS has maybe 90% on free/reduced lunch so apparently money is pretty tight for the families that go there, so what does the principal do? She has a candy cart that sells candy to the supposedly poor and impoverished never mind the nutritional arguments that go along with that. Does that sound logical?

A few points.

First, why would SNAP benefits go up in the summer? Don't you think it just averaged out over the entire year rather than having different amounts for each month?

Second, I SERIOUSLY doubt that 90% of your school district is on free or reduced price lunch.

Third, in regards to your candy cart, sounds like poor leadership from the school board to me , we actually voted to remove our soda machines a few years back, let alone selling candy to kids.

Maybe you should run for school board if this whole issue upsets you so much. But then again, well.........

[DragonStryk72]

Here's an opinion on that. There is a direct correlation between 9 lb chicken breasts becoming available at wal mart and almost every 15 y/o girl having huge tits. It can't be healthy to be eating all that shit.

Unfortunately the alternative is usually either very expensive organic food or limited food options.

Yeah, but that's the exactly the problem: The organic would be cheaper if they weren't cut off from the subsidies , and being charged fees to produce organic food. The big farms are basically deciding things for the little farms, which just isn't right. I'm all for keeping the government out of stuff to an extent, but government's most basic responsibilities is to ensure that there is a level playing field. If a set of regs are out there, they need to apply to everyone, not this group over here, or that group there. It's like trying to play Baseball, but each team has different rules to play by based on how much their ballclub pulls in each year.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying some farms should be given special treatment. I'm saying no farms should be getting special treatment. This protein should have been tested thoroughly before it ever made it in to the food supply, that's just basic sense.


We didn't skip your points to take some shots at CH, although that is fun, it's because IMO it isn't relative. If there are less kids eating lunch, or none, then the correct amount of food will be prepared/served and little will be thrown out.

Do you have a link for that? Because it seems that they would be increasing the allowance over the summer when school is out. But even if it is true, then go ahead and increase SNAP. Increasing mandates on schools takes away from their purpose of education.

An interesting history of school lunches:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/national_school_lunch/7487#HISTORY

And if that wasn't enough, we now have an after school snack program (http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_food_and_nutrition_programs/18762/pa_food_and_nutrition_-_afterschool_snack_program/646110). Is there any more evidence required that what seems like a good idea won't expand beyond original intentions?

Our local PS has maybe 90% on free/reduced lunch so apparently money is pretty tight for the families that go there, so what does the principal do? She has a candy cart that sells candy to the supposedly poor and impoverished never mind the nutritional arguments that go along with that. Does that sound logical?

That's right, it's not relative, FJ, that's my point. It isn't that schools want to waste food, or order food that will have to be thrown out. They don't have a choice, it's law. They have to have enough food to feed every single kid in the school, period. Whether the kids pay for it or not, they must still have that food, just like Casinos have to have money on hand equal to the amount of chips in play on the floor.

It does sound though like your School board there needs a swift kick in the ass, cause clearly they're going off the deep end with that.

[jimnyc]

I hope I'm not repeating old news. But here is what I think Abbey and others were getting at. When you let the government into the lunch business at school, how far do you let them go? How about if you DO send your kid off to school with lunch, but the school makes your child eat something else as they don't feel your meal is nutritious enough? Where does it end? How long will it be before parents are fined because the government doesn't "approve" of the kids lunch? The government shouldn't be telling us what we can and cannot eat. They shouldn't be telling us how to raise our children and feed them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lunch-protests-crackdown-homemade-lunches_631809.html

[ConHog]

I hope I'm not repeating old news. But here is what I think Abbey and others were getting at. When you let the government into the lunch business at school, how far do you let them go? How about if you DO send your kid off to school with lunch, but the school makes your child eat something else as they don't feel your meal is nutritious enough? Where does it end? How long will it be before parents are fined because the government doesn't "approve" of the kids lunch? The government shouldn't be telling us what we can and cannot eat. They shouldn't be telling us how to raise our children and feed them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lunch-protests-crackdown-homemade-lunches_631809.html

I absolutely agree that school was wrong. Of course a school has a mandate to make sure the meals THEY provide meet certain nutritional requirements, but they've no business checking brought from home lunches for such.

[Abbey Marie]

I hope I'm not repeating old news. But here is what I think Abbey and others were getting at. When you let the government into the lunch business at school, how far do you let them go? How about if you DO send your kid off to school with lunch, but the school makes your child eat something else as they don't feel your meal is nutritious enough? Where does it end? How long will it be before parents are fined because the government doesn't "approve" of the kids lunch? The government shouldn't be telling us what we can and cannot eat. They shouldn't be telling us how to raise our children and feed them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lunch-protests-crackdown-homemade-lunches_631809.html

Yup. And I tried twice to show the slippery slope from lunch to the other craziness. The total lack of personal responsibility engendered, and required siphoning off the taxpayers to do so.
But apparently some can't or won't see it.

Next on the agenda is probably free student dinners, or at least a free take-home snack. After all, who can do imagined homework on an empty stomach, and those poor stressed parents can't make dinner either. Right? :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

A few points.

First, why would SNAP benefits go up in the summer? Don't you think it just averaged out over the entire year rather than having different amounts for each month?

Second, I SERIOUSLY doubt that 90% of your school district is on free or reduced price lunch.

Third, in regards to your candy cart, sounds like poor leadership from the school board to me , we actually voted to remove our soda machines a few years back, let alone selling candy to kids.

Maybe you should run for school board if this whole issue upsets you so much. But then again, well.........

First, DS said it figured for school lunch, that was my logical leap.
Second, I said school not district, and doubt what you like.
Third, you bet, it exemplifies the leadership.

And the demographics area against me. Besides, who said I was upset, just pointing out where issue-by-issue gets us. :poke:

[Shadow]

Yup. And I tried twice to show the slippery slope from lunch to the other craziness. The total lack of personal responsibility engendered, and required siphoning off the taxpayers to do so.
But apparently some can't or won't see it.

Next on the agenda is probably free student dinners, or at least a free take-home snack. After all, who can do imagined homework on an empty stomach, and those poor stressed parents can't make dinner either. Right? :rolleyes:

They already have a program in place via the United Way which partners with several schools (including some in NM) to funds take home food for kids. In order to participate your family has to qualify for free or reduced lunches. To me it's already only a matter of time before this program is government funded.

I will also add that a lot of children who qualify for "reduced lunches" are not starving on the weekends. Heck...my kids can qualify for reduced lunches if I really wanted to milk the system for freebies.

http://www.unitedwaycfc.org/post/united-ways-young-leaders-pack-food-kids-back-pack-program

[fj1200]

That's right, it's not relative, FJ, that's my point. It isn't that schools want to waste food, or order food that will have to be thrown out. They don't have a choice, it's law. They have to have enough food to feed every single kid in the school, period. Whether the kids pay for it or not, they must still have that food, just like Casinos have to have money on hand equal to the amount of chips in play on the floor.

It does sound though like your School board there needs a swift kick in the ass, cause clearly they're going off the deep end with that.

Another example of stupid regulations. Our school has lunch brought in from an outside vendor and they only bring what is paid for.

[Abbey Marie]

They already have a program in place via the United Way which partners with several schools (including some in NM) to funds take home food for kids. In order to participate your family has to qualify for free or reduced lunches. To me it's already only a matter of time before this program is government funded.

I will also add that a lot of children who qualify for "reduced lunches" are not starving on the weekends. Heck...my kids can qualify for reduced lunches if I really wanted to milk the system for freebies.

http://www.unitedwaycfc.org/post/united-ways-young-leaders-pack-food-kids-back-pack-program

Well, howzabout that. And if these parents already on all kinds of assistance go and have more children, I suppose we will take over the responsibility for them too?

[Shadow]

Well, howzabout that. And if these parents already on all kinds of assistance go and have more children, I suppose we will take over the responsibility for them too?


I can tell you for a fact...that when I went to apply for daycare aid after getting a better paying job and being turned down (because I made $12.00 too much a month to qualify any longer). A case worked for CYFD...told me point blank 2 ways in which to cheat the system OR to have another child. So, yes...we will be responsible for them too.

[darin]

am a little sad nobody commented on my description, or parts, of mary's nights. :)

[Nukeman]

am a little sad nobody commented on my description, or parts, of mary's nights. :)Darin, we all know you are full of sh*t:laugh:

[jimnyc]

No superpowers I can speak of on a family-friendly forum[/B].


am a little sad nobody commented on my description, or parts, of mary's nights. :)

I was too busy using my imagination!

[DragonStryk72]

Another example of stupid regulations. Our school has lunch brought in from an outside vendor and they only bring what is paid for.

Actually, many schools already stopped making their own food on site, but they still have to account for feeding everyone, and the health regs are against the schools on this one. The alternative is this: Which kids that brought money to pay for lunch don't get served some days, especially the days when pizza is served? Hell, restaurants, fast food places, they all have excess food for exactly this reason, because they would rather have a bunch extra and have to scrap some, than to hit a shortage wherein the customers can't buy.

[Shadow]

Actually, many schools already stopped making their own food on site, but they still have to account for feeding everyone, and the health regs are against the schools on this one. The alternative is this: Which kids that brought money to pay for lunch don't get served some days, especially the days when pizza is served? Hell, restaurants, fast food places, they all have excess food for exactly this reason, because they would rather have a bunch extra and have to scrap some, than to hit a shortage wherein the customers can't buy.

Yep...my kids have had catered food at school all through Grade School,Jr High and now High School. And both of them say the food is terrible. The only thing that has changed over the years is where it is cooked apparently.

[DragonStryk72]

So, um, about the OP: The question is how to reverse course on this. I mean, these proteins are literally so widespread at this point that pretty much everything we eat is injected with them, and thanks to the government playing favorites with the rules, organic alternative are going to be prohibitively expensive for most the population for a while yet.

I think the key is making certain this doesn't happen again. Simple testing of the proteins would have most likely turned up these side effects, and while in most instance I think the FDA does overstep, this is one of those ones where they really do need to be proactive. Something being introduced to so much of our food supply obviously needs to be cleared first, not just blindly thrown in and see what happens.

[DragonStryk72]

Yep...my kids have had catered food at school all through Grade School,Jr High and now High School. And both of them say the food is terrible. The only thing that has changed over the years is where it is cooked apparently.

lol, well, cafeterias never exactly captured the greatest culinary minds of the world. I doubt we'll ever see really good tasting food being served in our schools. This, more than cost of time, is why I would likely make my kids' lunches.

[Intense]

So, um, about the OP: The question is how to reverse course on this. I mean, these proteins are literally so widespread at this point that pretty much everything we eat is injected with them, and thanks to the government playing favorites with the rules, organic alternative are going to be prohibitively expensive for most the population for a while yet.

:clap: For addressing the OP.

I think the key is making certain this doesn't happen again. Simple testing of the proteins would have most likely turned up these side effects, and while in most instance I think the FDA does overstep, this is one of those ones where they really do need to be proactive. Something being introduced to so much of our food supply obviously needs to be cleared first, not just blindly thrown in and see what happens.

Consider that the Big Companies are catering to the export demands by providing food free of Genetic Engineering. We should pressure Government to both label genetically engineered food, and provide safe food as an alternative, for starters. In a perfect World, the EPA should take it up the ass, and fund the cost out of It's Pension and Retirement fund, in return we can promise not to prosecute. ..... Ring..... Ring..... Ring...... Oh shit, I over slept again. I hope I wasn't talking in my sleep, again. :eek:

[fj1200]

... but they still have to account for feeding everyone...

Apparently not everywhere.

[logroller]

Here's an opinion on that. There is a direct correlation between 9 lb chicken breasts becoming available at wal mart and almost every 15 y/o girl having huge tits. It can't be healthy to be eating all that shit.

Unfortunately the alternative is usually either very expensive organic food or limited food options.
do you mean to imply that's a bad side-effect? :laugh:

[SassyLady]

First of all congrats to your grandson. Thank you.


Second of all, I think we all know there is a difference between missing an occasional lunch and not having lunch on a regular basis. So your anecdote, while cute, doesn't apply.

My point, which you completely missed in my little anecdote, is that parents and children need to learn personal responsibility. The public school system has turned the masses into dependent, can't think for themselves, individuals who expect society to take care of them.

Darwin's Law has totally been skewed by society's need to coddle. No wonder "advanced civilizations" fail.


Look we agree that many CHOOSE not to make sacrifices that they probably SHOULD make. But in the meantime we need to face realities. A sad reality is that many a parent see schools as day cares which by God not only have to take care of their children for 10 hours a day and provide for all their needs, but also ones that can't actually discipline said children. The choices are either tell those people to fuck off or to deal with it the best we can. That's why schools must have police on campus now, nurses on staff, cafeterias, sports teams, after school activities, and a myriad of other things. Back when Laura Engal was a a teacher your ass learned to read , write, and do math and that was ALL the school provided, but those days are long gone my friend. Never to return.

And how did these parents get to this point? Because, we as a society, have allowed it to happen through insidious things like providing cafeteria lunches so that parents can turn their back on that responsibility.


Here's an opinion on that. There is a direct correlation between 9 lb chicken breasts becoming available at wal mart and almost every 15 y/o girl having huge tits. It can't be healthy to be eating all that shit.

Unfortunately the alternative is usually either very expensive organic food or limited food options.

I ate home grown chickens and had huge boobies that had to be reduced because of genetics, not the food I ate. Big boobies have been around a lot longer than genetically altered food.

[Jess]

am a little sad nobody commented on my description, or parts, of mary's nights. :)

That's cuz some of us don't know you as well and were going "Is Darin's wife really a stripper? That doesn't exactly fit with what I know of him..." :laugh:

If she is, she's a braver woman than I am. If she's not, well, you have your little fantasy, right? ;)

[Abbey Marie]

Thank you.
...
And how did these parents get to this point? Because, we as a society, have allowed it to happen through insidious things like providing cafeteria lunches so that parents can turn their back on that responsibility.
...


And let's not not forget the most insidious problem of all- lawsuits- if the schools make one so-called misstep.

[Shadow]

My point, which you completely missed in my little anecdote, is that parents and children need to learn personal responsibility. The public school system has turned the masses into dependent, can't think for themselves, individuals who expect society to take care of them.

Darwin's Law has totally been skewed by society's need to coddle. No wonder "advanced civilizations" fail.



And how did these parents get to this point? Because, we as a society, have allowed it to happen through insidious things like providing cafeteria lunches so that parents can turn their back on that responsibility.






This is why today's children are not taught the tools they need to succeed. Parents rely on the school...school drops the ball the majority of the time...even though they claim to know what's best. As my kids have gotten older...I have found that I fight the schools to enforce their own rules and guidelines every bit as much as I fight my kids to abide by them. The kids with slacker parents just fall through the cracks.