Real food - is that too much to ask?

[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.

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

And way to blame overcooked Navy food on health.

[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.

[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?