Michelle's war on children

[glockmail]

In Wisconsin, high school athletes are complaining about not getting enough to eat each day, due to the skimpy new school lunch menu mandated by the United States Department of Agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama.
The story we published earlier this week on that subject is unfortunately not unique. Students across the country are complaining about the new school lunch regulations.
Perhaps the real motive is to starve students into slimming down. Just ask students in Pierre, South Dakota who, too, are in an all-out revolt.
"I know a lot of my friends who are just drinking a jug of milk for their lunch. And they are not getting a proper meal," middle school student Samantha Gortmaker told Keloland.com (http://www.keloland.com/News/newsdetail6374.cfm/students-trash-veggies-rather-than-eat-them/?id=137345).
Despite the fact that the new regulations have increased the cost of a lunch 20 to 25 cents per plate, it’s not pleasing students.
Some are throwing away their vegetables while others are adapting to the rules by becoming industrious. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, students have created a black market - for chocolate syrup. The kiddie capitalists are smuggling in bottles of it and selling it by the squeeze, according to SouthCoastToday.com (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120913/NEWS/209130378).
Nancy Carvalho, director of food services for New Bedford Public Schools, was quoted as saying that hummus and black bean salads have been tough sells in elementary cafeterias. That means even smaller children are going through the day fighting hunger pains, which can never be considered a good thing.
One government official tried to put the blame on the students.
"One thing I think we need to keep in mind as kids say they're still hungry is that many children aren't used to eating fruits and vegetables at home, much less at school. So it's a change in what they are eating. If they are still hungry, it's that they are not eating all the food that's being offered," USDA Deputy Undersecretary Janey Thornton was quoted as saying.http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2012/09/23/complaints_mount_against_michelle_obamas_new_lunch _menu

The Obama is ensuring that an entire generation of kids will grow up to hate Democrats, and that's a good thing. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2012/09/23/complaints_mount_against_michelle_obamas_new_lunch _menu

The Obama is ensuring that an entire generation of kids will grow up to hate Democrats, and that's a good thing. :laugh:

Typical lib mentality, they know best, ff- the people. Force them to change and lets start by changing their kids, government owns the kids is their mentality. Michele is a certified piece of liberal minded scum in my book. She seeks to void parental rights with HER insane whats best to eat bullshat. Who the ff- died and made her King? Thats right the golfing , vacationing , non-stop election campaigning idiot did !! --Tyr

[sundaydriver]

Back in the the day when Jack Kennedy started the Fitness Program in school we were skinny little kids with 24 hours of energy we enjoyed the PT testing and learned some things.

When Nancy Reagen started the Just Say NO Initiate for drugs I listened but said: Nahhh.

Whatever Barbara Bush said; I did.

I was an avid reader until Laura Bush started her Reading Program. I haven't read anything longer than two paragraphs since. My Mother, the librarian now hates me.

Michelle Obamas Health Eating Initiave I do agree with. Never have I seen so many obese kids who don't get any exercise and have such a craving for junk food. Apparently I'm not alone.

Retired military leaders want junk foods out of schools


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/25/retired-military-leaders-want-junk-foods-out-of-schools/57839006/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/25/retired-military-leaders-want-junk-foods-out-of-schools/57839006/1)

[glockmail]

The difference, of course, is that all those other programs were voluntary.

[jimnyc]

The difference, of course, is that all those other programs were voluntary.

And Michelle's menu is enough to starve the kids, about 1/3 of what past first ladies recommended and fought for. But I guess HUGE lettering wins out over facts. :rolleyes:

[glockmail]

And Michelle's menu is enough to starve the kids, about 1/3 of what past first ladies recommended and fought for. But I guess HUGE lettering wins out over facts. :rolleyes:

Liberalism is the leading cause of mental retardation.

[jimnyc]

Liberalism is the leading cause of mental retardation.

Or mental retardation causes liberalism? Ok, cheap shot, cause I know some libs who are decent folks, but bad policy is bad policy, and it generally comes from the liberal democrat side.

[sundaydriver]

Jim I have noticed your turn for the worst towards anyone that has a different opinion. Down to name calling, shame. You should sell, and please do it quick before your board sinks too low to save!

[jimnyc]

Jim I have noticed your turn for the worst towards anyone that has a different opinion. Down to name calling, shame. You should sell, and please do it quick before your board sinks too low to save!

Can you point out where I am calling people names? Or are you being a baby because someone is handing you facts that hurt your ass a little?

[gabosaurus]

Some are throwing away their vegetables while others are adapting to the rules by becoming industrious. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, students have created a black market - for chocolate syrup.

A black market for junk food?
So now we are blaming Obama for schools no longer offering fatty foods like burgers and mystery meats? Sorry, this is beyond ConRep lunacy. This is totally idiocy.
Kudos to TownHall for going the extra mile in muckraking. :laugh::laugh:

[jimnyc]

Jim I have noticed your turn for the worst towards anyone that has a different opinion. Down to name calling, shame. You should sell, and please do it quick before your board sinks too low to save!

Oh, and Btw, with all respect, if it's me you have an issue with, or DP in general, or any other specific member - there is a button on the very upper right of the board that says "Log Out". If you can't handle a little passionate debate and are going to whine, you are free to leave, I promise I won't send you a bill. There's a lot of whiners here and MUCH more action, and the board needs no saving - http://www.usmessageboard.com

If you truly have that much of an issue with me, I'll pay you back what you paid to be a member here, wish you the best of luck and health in your life, and bid you a fond adieu. I might want to temper my comments at times, but I'm not going to kiss someone's ass, and certainly not someone that is going to bring board ownership/running issues into a debate because they got their ass handed to them in 2 consecutive threads.

[sundaydriver]

Or mental retardation causes liberalism? Ok, cheap shot, cause I know some libs who are decent folks, but bad policy is bad policy, and it generally comes from the liberal democrat side.

It's a shame that recognizing a problem and appreciating people speaking up about it can be related to retardation for a laugh with the crowd.

[gabosaurus]

If you truly have that much of an issue with me, I'll pay you back what you paid to be a member here, wish you the best of luck and health in your life, and bid you a fond adieu. I might want to temper my comments at times, but I'm not going to kiss someone's ass, and certainly not someone that is going to bring board ownership/running issues into a debate because they got their ass handed to them in 2 consecutive threads.

http://stuffwhitedbagslike.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/chill-out-photographic-print-c12255139.jpeg

Jim, remember you are an admin and are supposed to set the tone for the rest of the board.

Sunday Driver, if you have a particular issue with Jim (or any other member), please take it to PM. Things are much easily resolved that way.

[jimnyc]

It's a shame that recognizing a problem and appreciating people speaking up about it can be related to retardation for a laugh with the crowd.

It's a shame you couldn't comprehend what I wrote, which was a funny retort to Glock, which my next line even said was a lame cheap shot. And it most certainly wasn't name calling anyone here, and you're not a liberal, or so I thought. So it would appear to me that you're looking for a reason to be pissy with me because I shoved some facts on you and laughed at your large lettering.

Ask me nicely, and the next time I make a post that you might read I will go out of my way to have footnotes and clear explanations as to what I write, wouldn't want anyone butt hurt on a political message board!

[logroller]

The difference, of course, is that all those other programs were voluntary.
I don't recall being able to opt out of the just say no campaign in school. But I suppose went he time came, I didn't opt to say no. Besides, can't the kids just bring a lunch from home?

[glockmail]

Or mental retardation causes liberalism? Ok, cheap shot, cause I know some libs who are decent folks, but bad policy is bad policy, and it generally comes from the liberal democrat side.My statement is very carefully worded. In no way do I call liberals "mentally retarded", nor infer that all liberals are "mentally retarded".

[jimnyc]

Jim, remember you are an admin and are supposed to set the tone for the rest of the board.

Sunday Driver, if you have a particular issue with Jim (or any other member), please take it to PM. Things are much easily resolved that way.

Gabby, with all due respect, to someone who has been kind to me - I really don't need your help in a debate, and I don't need you to remind me of rules or tell me HOW to debate. I have not gotten out of line but to make a few witty and sarcastic comments. Are you telling me that as owner/admin that I can only post in the most politest of ways, cannot be passionate, cannot be sarcastic and cannot speak my mind?

Is this really what you guys want from me? I'm an admin when I'm an admin, outside of that I would like to be a regular member and post like everyone else too.

Now this is 2 times in a matter of days that people are jumping on my ass for posting the same damn way I did for 9 years AND I guarantee you that those who know me best will even say I have improved dramatically. Is this really what you guys are pushing for, for me to stop running this place, and perhaps offload to someone who will only kiss ass, or only run things behind the scenes and never post?

Either way, I'm fucking done. I try, try and try. But someone is always upset over stupid shit. But meanwhile, anyone else is welcome to say whatever the fuck they want to the owner, and that's cool I suppose, because they aren't supposed to set a tone. I'm supposed to be Mr. Perfect and allow people to poke me with a stick.

I thought I had made a mistake in my rash decision the other day about perhaps selling this place, and a handful of people are making it clear that they like the sound of the idea. I guess some really do believe they are interacting with the likes of Virgil or Pale Rider - all because I made a funny about liberalism and mental retardation. Oh no! No one here has EVER made fun of liberals, or conservatives. But when Jim does it, the board sucks and Jim sucks as an admin and might be better off offloading the site before it goes down the shitter. Have it your way people.

[jimnyc]

My statement is very carefully worded. In no way do I call liberals "mentally retarded", nor infer that all liberals are "mentally retarded".

I know that, Glock, I took your post as a "funny", and my reply was simply changing the direction of your statement and trying to one up your funniness. Apparently I failed.

[glockmail]

I don't recall being able to opt out of the just say no campaign in school. But I suppose went he time came, I didn't opt to say no. Besides, can't the kids just bring a lunch from home? Obviously you could opt out as you stated. Kids can bring a lunch from home but lots of kids don't have that option. There have also been reports of federal agents policing home lunches, forcing a kid to buy a cafeteria supplement when they deemed that the home meal did not meet federal standards.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8762

[glockmail]

I know that, Glock, I took your post as a "funny", and my reply was simply changing the direction of your statement and trying to one up your funniness. Apparently I failed. You didn't fail Jim, I just two-uped you. :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

Obviously you could opt out as you stated. Kids can bring a lunch from home but lots of kids don't have that option. There have also been reports of federal agents policing home lunches, forcing a kid to buy a cafeteria supplement when they deemed that the home meal did not meet federal standards.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8762

I have never seen this reported in any reliable mainstream publication. Kids in our district can bring anything they want for lunch.Or they can choose to not eat lunch.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Gabby, with all due respect, to someone who has been kind to me - I really don't need your help in a debate, and I don't need you to remind me of rules or tell me HOW to debate. I have not gotten out of line but to make a few witty and sarcastic comments. Are you telling me that as owner/admin that I can only post in the most politest of ways, cannot be passionate, cannot be sarcastic and cannot speak my mind?

Is this really what you guys want from me? I'm an admin when I'm an admin, outside of that I would like to be a regular member and post like everyone else too.

Now this is 2 times in a matter of days that people are jumping on my ass for posting the same damn way I did for 9 years AND I guarantee you that those who know me best will even say I have improved dramatically. Is this really what you guys are pushing for, for me to stop running this place, and perhaps offload to someone who will only kiss ass, or only run things behind the scenes and never post?

Either way, I'm fucking done. I try, try and try. But someone is always upset over stupid shit. But meanwhile, anyone else is welcome to say whatever the fuck they want to the owner, and that's cool I suppose, because they aren't supposed to set a tone. I'm supposed to be Mr. Perfect and allow people to poke me with a stick.

I thought I had made a mistake in my rash decision the other day about perhaps selling this place, and a handful of people are making it clear that they like the sound of the idea. I guess some really do believe they are interacting with the likes of Virgil or Pale Rider - all because I made a funny about liberalism and mental retardation. Oh no! No one here has EVER made fun of liberals, or conservatives. But when Jim does it, the board sucks and Jim sucks as an admin and might be better off offloading the site before it goes down the shitter. Have it your way people.

Jim, good god man get a grip. Its gabby , why would you care what criticism she makes!?? She is as loopey as a bowlegged fag in a whorehouse.
Your posts have been just fine. In fact , have improved in my opinion. Hell. I look for them for information and to give me ideals too. I've used those ideals after being researched here and on other forums that I post on.
Ignore the fooooooools I always say. :beer:-Tyr

[logroller]

Obviously you could opt out as you stated. Kids can bring a lunch from home but lots of kids don't have that option. There have also been reports of federal agents policing home lunches, forcing a kid to buy a cafeteria supplement when they deemed that the home meal did not meet federal standards.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8762
That is a troubling report, mostly because the lunch did satisfy USDA requirements. What if it was crackers and water?
What do you mean by they don't have that option--they can't afford it? That's a different thing altogether IMHO. You don't look a gift horse in the mouth. You don't go to a soup kitchen and complain the bread is stale.

[Kathianne]

I have never seen this reported in any reliable mainstream publication. Kids in our district can bring anything they want for lunch.Or they can choose to not eat lunch.

Chicago Tribune?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school


Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home
To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn't allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren't fans of the policy
April 11, 2011|By Monica Eng and Joel Hood, Tribune reporters


Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school#).


"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.
Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school#) shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"


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


At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school#) West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.


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


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

[Robert A Whit]

Or mental retardation causes liberalism? Ok, cheap shot, cause I know some libs who are decent folks, but bad policy is bad policy, and it generally comes from the liberal democrat side.

I have spent 4 decades as a small L liberal. Because I did not really understand what life is all about concerning things like taxes and operating the Feds. It took me that long to finally turn the corner and I have spent over 3 decades as a reformed liberal.

This is how it works.

Bear in mind that criminals have pals who like them. Machine Gun Kelly in the 30s had friends too.

Jesse James had friends. Al Capone had friends.

So, somebody will always like the crooks. Look at death row inmates and how they attract friends and some marry the inmate or want to marry the inmate.

The left winger is generous.

No, not with their money, but they enjoy your earnings but want those directed either at some people of their choosing or some cause of their choosing.

I mean, what is the difference in Al Capone the gangster and the liberal?

Each wants what you have in your accounts. The sooner they can drain you the happier they are.

[KarlMarx]

Marie Antoinette.. "Let them eat cake"

Michelle Obama... "Make them eat tofu"

[SassyLady]

Gabby, with all due respect, to someone who has been kind to me - I really don't need your help in a debate, and I don't need you to remind me of rules or tell me HOW to debate. I have not gotten out of line but to make a few witty and sarcastic comments. Are you telling me that as owner/admin that I can only post in the most politest of ways, cannot be passionate, cannot be sarcastic and cannot speak my mind?

Is this really what you guys want from me? I'm an admin when I'm an admin, outside of that I would like to be a regular member and post like everyone else too.

Now this is 2 times in a matter of days that people are jumping on my ass for posting the same damn way I did for 9 years AND I guarantee you that those who know me best will even say I have improved dramatically. Is this really what you guys are pushing for, for me to stop running this place, and perhaps offload to someone who will only kiss ass, or only run things behind the scenes and never post?

Either way, I'm fucking done. I try, try and try. But someone is always upset over stupid shit. But meanwhile, anyone else is welcome to say whatever the fuck they want to the owner, and that's cool I suppose, because they aren't supposed to set a tone. I'm supposed to be Mr. Perfect and allow people to poke me with a stick.

I thought I had made a mistake in my rash decision the other day about perhaps selling this place, and a handful of people are making it clear that they like the sound of the idea. I guess some really do believe they are interacting with the likes of Virgil or Pale Rider - all because I made a funny about liberalism and mental retardation. Oh no! No one here has EVER made fun of liberals, or conservatives. But when Jim does it, the board sucks and Jim sucks as an admin and might be better off offloading the site before it goes down the shitter. Have it your way people.

I don't know who is recommending that you sell this place but I vote to "shun" them from the tribe. This place is exactly what it is because of your "tone" Jim. If people don't like your "tone" then they should find a place that is more in tune with their "tone".

Do I always agree with you? No. But I would never tell you that because of your opinions you should consider selling this board.

BTW...have any of the conservative posters on this thread made the suggestion? Or is it just the liberals?

[sundaydriver]

It's a shame you couldn't comprehend what I wrote, which was a funny retort to Glock, which my next line even said was a lame cheap shot. And it most certainly wasn't name calling anyone here, and you're not a liberal, or so I thought. So it would appear to me that you're looking for a reason to be pissy with me because I shoved some facts on you and laughed at your large lettering.

Ask me nicely, and the next time I make a post that you might read I will go out of my way to have footnotes and clear explanations as to what I write, wouldn't want anyone butt hurt on a political message board!

Actually I did comprehend what you wrote. What I've seen on this board lately is a herd mentality of jumping on what is seen as anything that dosn't jive with the herd mentality as it seems to threaten the herds way of thinking. It seems a few people here like to dish it out but can't take it when given back. Grow some more skin people!

[taft2012]

Besides, can't the kids just bring a lunch from home?

Well there's the obvious question I've been asking for years myself.

I'm not from the stone-age, but when I went to elementary school if you didn't bring lunch you didn't eat. If you didn't buy a container of milk you didn't drink.

I'm not in the mood to listen to horseshyte about "poor kids" either. We're giving their parents Food Stamps to feed the kids. If they're not using the Food Stamps to feed their kids then there is something fundamentally wrong with the program and it needs to be re-evaluated. Giving the parents Food Stamps *AND* feeding the kids directly is a form of welfare "double dipping", if not outright fraud.

That's 5 meals out of the weekly 35 meals....which amounts to 15% of which either the school lunch or Food Stamp program can be cut and is currently being overspent.

We're now seeing more and more schools also providing breakfast, which doubles that figure to 30%.

[jimnyc]

Actually I did comprehend what you wrote. What I've seen on this board lately is a herd mentality of jumping on what is seen as anything that dosn't jive with the herd mentality as it seems to threaten the herds way of thinking. It seems a few people here like to dish it out but can't take it when given back. Grow some more skin people!

Sunday, if you're angry with me, so be it. But I'm confused. YOU didn't like something I wrote last night and suggested I had issues and should sell off the board before it goes down any further. Seriously, and I mean this with respect, please show me what I did that was so wrong. I honestly am trying to post better and be kinder, but I have slip ups. I'm human. But I get into political debates and let a few sarcastic moments in here and there. But if YOU had the thicker skin, wouldn't this entire thing have been avoidable? I don't run around going nuts on people who don't agree with the "herd mentality". I generally put a lot of thought into my posts, ensure what I am writing is factual and try to present myself as intelligent and make arguments that are sound. And yes, I lived a life of sarcasm, so it squeezes in there. But honestly, I really don't see what I did that was deserving of you telling me how I was lowering myself to name calling and should sell the board to save it from myself. Please explain so I can learn and move forward?

[logroller]

Well there's the obvious question I've been asking for years myself.

I'm not from the stone-age, but when I went to elementary school if you didn't bring lunch you didn't eat. If you didn't buy a container of milk you didn't drink.

I'm not in the mood to listen to horseshyte about "poor kids" either. We're giving their parents Food Stamps to feed the kids. If they're not using the Food Stamps to feed their kids then there is something fundamentally wrong with the program and it needs to be re-evaluated. Giving the parents Food Stamps *AND* feeding the kids directly is a form of welfare "double dipping", if not outright fraud.

That's 5 meals out of the weekly 35 meals....which amounts to 15% of which either the school lunch or Food Stamp program can be cut and is currently being overspent.

We're now seeing more and more schools also providing breakfast, which doubles that figure to 30%.i happen to believe breakfast is the most important meal of the day; and pursuant to the intent of feeding kids so they can better learn, I believe breakfast satisifies a fundamental interest. But as to the bold, I think the hammer has met the nail. The fundamental problem with government assistance is that it is abused/ poorly practiced. Tough call though, as I'm sure many do make the most of the program-- there's just no incentive not to abuse it, and from personal experience I can tell you the administration of those programs, at best, turns a blind-eye to non-compliance, while discretionary zeal likewise attacks those who fail to conform to a standard despite having no skin in the game.

[Nukeman]

Actually I did comprehend what you wrote. What I've seen on this board lately is a herd mentality of jumping on what is seen as anything that dosn't jive with the herd mentality as it seems to threaten the herds way of thinking. It seems a few people here like to dish it out but can't take it when given back. Grow some more skin people!
Why don't you take your own advixe on the second highlited part!?!?!?!? YOU are the one that started with Jim selling the board because YOU felt someone called you a name.. TALK ABOUT THIN SKINNED!!!!!


As for the first part I co believe YOU need to spend a lot more time to see that the "herd" mentality is not very strong here.. In fact I rarely see that happening. do we have a strong conservative group here?? YES!!! do we a couple of circle jerking posters that stroke each others ego's?? YES!! Is that the norm?? NO!!

Take your own advice.... GET A THICKER SKIN AND QUIT WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!:poke:

[Nukeman]

i happen to believe breakfast is the most important meal of the day; and pursuant to the intent of feeding kids so they can better learn, I believe breakfast satisifies a fundamental interest. But as to the bold, I think the hammer has met the nail. The fundamental problem with government assistance is that it is abused/ poorly practiced. Tough call though, as I'm sure many do make the most of the program-- there's just no incentive not to abuse it, and from personal experience I can tell you the administration of those programs, at best, turns a blind-eye to non-compliance, while discretionary zeal likewise attacks those who fail to conform to a standard despite having no skin in the game.

Dude it all barrels down to MONEY. The more kids on reduced and free lunches actually means MORE assitance for the ENTIRE school.. Every student that qualifies for those programs in turn qulify for other programs which bring MORE money to the school..

It has NEVER been about the kids it has always been about the money!!!!!!!

[glockmail]

I have never seen this reported in any reliable mainstream publication. Kids in our district can bring anything they want for lunch.Or they can choose to not eat lunch.Carolina Journal has been around for a long time reporting on regional issues and has an excellent reputation. You haven't heard of it because you don't live here and think we're rednecks, mouthbreaders and such. Interesting though is that the author of that piece is a California native and graduated from San Diego State University.

[glockmail]

That is a troubling report, mostly because the lunch did satisfy USDA requirements. What if it was crackers and water?
What do you mean by they don't have that option--they can't afford it? That's a different thing altogether IMHO. You don't look a gift horse in the mouth. You don't go to a soup kitchen and complain the bread is stale.

Lots of kids parents don't have the time to make lunches. At least that was the excuse for federal involvement in school lunches to begin with. You don't get to use an argument to make your case and then ignore the same argument when it becomes inconvenient later on.

[glockmail]

Chicago Tribune?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-11/news/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school
Good job. That shows that its not just an isolated case. This is becoming full blown, nation-wide lunch Nazi.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

well there's the obvious question i've been asking for years myself.

I'm not from the stone-age, but when i went to elementary school if you didn't bring lunch you didn't eat. If you didn't buy a container of milk you didn't drink.

I'm not in the mood to listen to horseshyte about "poor kids" either. We're giving their parents food stamps to feed the kids. If they're not using the food stamps to feed their kids then there is something fundamentally wrong with the program and it needs to be re-evaluated. Giving the parents food stamps *and* feeding the kids directly is a form of welfare "double dipping", if not outright fraud.

That's 5 meals out of the weekly 35 meals....which amounts to 15% of which either the school lunch or food stamp program can be cut and is currently being overspent.

We're now seeing more and more schools also providing breakfast, which doubles that figure to 30%.

To that I can only add...
amen!!!!!!!!!!

[logroller]

Dude it all barrels down to MONEY. The more kids on reduced and free lunches actually means MORE assitance for the ENTIRE school.. Every student that qualifies for those programs in turn qulify for other programs which bring MORE money to the school..

It has NEVER been about the kids it has always been about the money!!!!!!!
It takes money to run a school; hard to argue otherwise. But to say its all about money is disingenuous IMO; I was raised in a home of educators and much of my family still is involved (my wife, for example) and I can tell you there are many who actually act in the best interests of the kids in stark contrast to what is monetarily rewarded.


Carolina Journal has been around for a long time reporting on regional issues and has an excellent reputation. You haven't heard of it because you don't live here and think we're rednecks, mouthbreaders and such. Interesting though is that the author of that piece is a California native and graduated from San Diego State University.
It was a goOd article-- unbiased IMHO; but it was speaking about a state reg/ state enforcement-- not federal.

[glockmail]

It was a goOd article-- unbiased IMHO; but it was speaking about a state reg/ state enforcement-- not federal.

It was about a state agent and her Nazi interpretation of a state law that enforces the federal requirements. If the fed's requirements weren't there, the state law would be moot.

[Thunderknuckles]

I don't recall being able to opt out of the just say no campaign in school. But I suppose went he time came, I didn't opt to say no. Besides, can't the kids just bring a lunch from home?
Thank you :clap:

[logroller]

Lots of kids parents don't have the time to make lunches. At least that was the excuse for federal involvement in school lunches to begin with. You don't get to use an argument to make your case and then ignore the same argument when it becomes inconvenient later on.
Of really? This was the purposed justification for the lunch program codified by the 79th Congress (1946)
The legislation was identified as the "National School Lunch Act," and Section 2 of the Act defines its purposes: "It i8 hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, as a measure of national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food, by assisting the States, through grants-in aid and other means, in providing an adequate supply of food and other facilities for the establishment, maintenance, operation and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.” 28 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_5.htm#28)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_5.htm


I see nothing about helping those who haven't the time, nor was that my premise-- I specifically mentione educational benefit, excluding financial need-- saying nothing about condoning parental involvement or lack thereof. Else, should parents be allowed to exclude their children from washing their hands after using the bathroom and before eating because they don't have time? Or money? I would think not. Clearly there is a public interest in health; perhaps you disagree that providing certain foods is pursuant to that interest, but surely you can agree that eating healthy is pursuant to good health. Our education system is charged with promoting the public interest of a productive populace. It has been determined that a healthier populace is more productive. Therefor, promoting healthy eating habits is contiguous with their mission. Likewise, it would send mixed messages for a school to teach healthy eating and at the same time provide unhealthy food-- just as it would be counterintuitive to teach washing with soap and water and requiring them to bring their own soap.

If you want to introduce the plethora of interrelated causes, that's fine; I don't want to be seen as ignorant. So let us consider the post-war rationale amid the context of the baby boom and the reallocation of wartime labor, mechanical and nitrogenous industries into the agricultural, construction and education sectors. That's as much a justification as parents not having the time to make their kids lunch.

[Thunderknuckles]

Obviously you could opt out as you stated. Kids can bring a lunch from home but lots of kids don't have that option. There have also been reports of federal agents policing home lunches, forcing a kid to buy a cafeteria supplement when they deemed that the home meal did not meet federal standards.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8762
I remember seeing another report like that as well. This is where the policy has obviously gone wrong. They have no business policing what parents make their kids for lunch.
As for not having that option, I'll echo what logroller said. Why? I grew up in a relatively poor household run by a single mother who sometimes worked two jobs to make it. Even so, she made my lunch in the morning and packed it up in my Krofft Superstar lunch pail :)
I'll grant you there must be some kids out there that don't have the option but how many are we talking about?

edit: sorry, looks like I am failing to keep up with the responses

[logroller]

I remember seeing another report like that as well. This is where the policy has obviously gone wrong. They have no business policing what parents make their kids for lunch.
As for not having that option, I'll echo what logroller said. Why? I grew up in a relatively poor household run by a single mother who sometimes worked two jobs to make it. Even so, she made my lunch in the morning and packed it up in my Krofft Superstar lunch pail :)
I'll grant you there must be some kids out there that don't have the option but how many are we talking about?

edit: sorry, looks like I am failing to keep up with the responses
I think you're onto something-- govt needs to provide lunch pails.;)

[glockmail]

Of really? This was the purposed justification for the lunch program codified by the 79th Congress (1946)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_5.htm


I see nothing about helping those who haven't the time, nor was that my premise-- I specifically mentione educational benefit, excluding financial need-- saying nothing about condoning parental involvement or lack thereof. Else, should parents be allowed to exclude their children from washing their hands after using the bathroom and before eating because they don't have time? Or money? I would think not. Clearly there is a public interest in health; perhaps you disagree that providing certain foods is pursuant to that interest, but surely you can agree that eating healthy is pursuant to good health. Our education system is charged with promoting the public interest of a productive populace. It has been determined that a healthier populace is more productive. Therefor, promoting healthy eating habits is contiguous with their mission. Likewise, it would send mixed messages for a school to teach healthy eating and at the same time provide unhealthy food-- just as it would be counterintuitive to teach washing with soap and water and requiring them to bring their own soap.

If you want to introduce the plethora of interrelated causes, that's fine; I don't want to be seen as ignorant. So let us consider the post-war rationale amid the context of the baby boom and the reallocation of wartime labor, mechanical and nitrogenous industries into the agricultural, construction and education sectors. That's as much a justification as parents not having the time to make their kids lunch.

That's just the "official" language. By providing these services it saves parents time and allows GovCo to have more people on the public dole.

[glockmail]

I remember seeing another report like that as well. This is where the policy has obviously gone wrong. They have no business policing what parents make their kids for lunch.
As for not having that option, I'll echo what logroller said. Why? I grew up in a relatively poor household run by a single mother who sometimes worked two jobs to make it. Even so, she made my lunch in the morning and packed it up in my Krofft Superstar lunch pail :)
I'll grant you there must be some kids out there that don't have the option but how many are we talking about?

edit: sorry, looks like I am failing to keep up with the responses

My mom made my lunch because it was cheaper than the school lunch. Occasionally she didn't have time so gave me the money for school lunch, so that's what we used it for: time vs. money.

[logroller]

That's just the "official" language. By providing these services it saves parents time and allows GovCo to have more people on the public dole.
That IS the official language, not the "official" language.

As to the latter, You may be right, but a conclusion predicated upon factually unsupported opinion is fallacious. Use facts to support your opined conclusion, but don't premise your opinion as fact. for example, do you have evidence of kids being more or less undernourished since the onset of this program? Is our country more or less productive than before? have the health/ productive benefits become superseded by the cost?
I'm certainly not keen on additional assistance programs if those current ones aren't satisfying their prescribed intent, but these are questions (among others) need to be answered to justify the continuation, modification or termination of government programs-- Else the proverbial baby may get thrown out with the bath water. That's counterproductive.

[Abbey Marie]

Jim I have noticed your turn for the worst towards anyone that has a different opinion. Down to name calling, shame. You should sell, and please do it quick before your board sinks too low to save!

Interesting that you can notice anything, since you aren't really here all that much.

You are now hereby a contender for the 2012 "Maineman Kick 'em While They're Down" award.

The shame is yours.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know who is recommending that you sell this place but I vote to "shun" them from the tribe. This place is exactly what it is because of your "tone" Jim. If people don't like your "tone" then they should find a place that is more in tune with their "tone".

Do I always agree with you? No. But I would never tell you that because of your opinions you should consider selling this board.

BTW...have any of the conservative posters on this thread made the suggestion? Or is it just the liberals?

:clap:

Unfortunately, some people mistake kindness for weakness. And can't resist, as I said above, kicking a person when they're down.

[Abbey Marie]

Actually I did comprehend what you wrote. What I've seen on this board lately is a herd mentality of jumping on what is seen as anything that dosn't jive with the herd mentality as it seems to threaten the herds way of thinking. It seems a few people here like to dish it out but can't take it when given back. Grow some more skin people!

"Grow some more skin", from the guy who just said this?:


Jim I have noticed your turn for the worst towards anyone that has a different opinion. Down to name calling, shame. You should sell, and please do it quick before your board sinks too low to save!

[glockmail]

That IS the official language, not the "official" language.

As to the latter, You may be right, but a conclusion predicated upon factually unsupported opinion is fallacious. Use facts to support your opined conclusion, but don't premise your opinion as fact. for example, do you have evidence of kids being more or less undernourished since the onset of this program? Is our country more or less productive than before? have the health/ productive benefits become superseded by the cost?
I'm certainly not keen on additional assistance programs if those current ones aren't satisfying their prescribed intent, but these are questions (among others) need to be answered to justify the continuation, modification or termination of government programs-- Else the proverbial baby may get thrown out with the bath water. That's counterproductive.
None of those issues are valid in my opinion, because the program is clearly unconstitutional. Parents have the responsibility to feed their kids, not the federal government.

[logroller]

None of those issues are valid in my opinion, because the program is clearly unconstitutional. Parents have the responsibility to feed their kids, not the federal government.
unfortunate perhaps, but your opinion doesn't carry the weight of law.

[glockmail]

unfortunate perhaps, but your opinion doesn't carry the weight of law.The law is wrong.

[logroller]

The law is wrong.
Congress is stupid.

[Kathianne]

Good job. That shows that its not just an isolated case. This is becoming full blown, nation-wide lunch Nazi.

Chicago Public Schools also seem to have a problem with edible:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-05/news/ct-met-undercover-school-lunch-20111005_1_school-lunch-speech-pathologist-cps


School lunch blogger 'Mrs. Q' drops anonymity
October 05, 2011|By Monica Eng, Tribune reporter

Sarah Wu does not look like a troublemaker. The slight, blond mom comes off, by her own admission (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-05/news/ct-met-undercover-school-lunch-20111005_1_school-lunch-speech-pathologist-cps#), as "a super nice person … without a bad word to say."


That may be why the speech pathologist was able to crank out an incisive daily blog scrutinizing school (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-05/news/ct-met-undercover-school-lunch-20111005_1_school-lunch-speech-pathologist-cps#) meals for an entire year without anyone suspecting her. Writing as "Mrs. Q," she bought lunch each school day of 2010, photographed it, ate it and wrote about it that night under the title Fed Up With Lunch (http://fedupwithlunch.com/).

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif




One early post noted: "Oftentimes what is served barely passes muster as something edible." A few days later: "I want less pre-fab food and higher quality options. Less crap, you know?" A lasagna lunch drew this review: "Wow. Truly monumentally bad. I couldn't get through the main entree. I was hungry too."


The blog quickly became a minor sensation, but its writer fiercely guarded her anonymity, fearing termination from the Chicago (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-05/news/ct-met-undercover-school-lunch-20111005_1_school-lunch-speech-pathologist-cps#) Public Schools, where she was employed.


On ABC's "Good Morning America" this morning, the author of a new book, also called "Fed Up With Lunch," noted that one of the reasons her blog was so popular was because many parents aren't aware of what's actually being served at school.


"Parents were totally shocked. ... Many parents really have no clue what's happening in the cafeteria and what the kids are eating," said Wu, who was identified by name on the show.
Through her months of research, Wu said she found that many versions of chicken nuggets are half chicken and half fillers, and that school pizza can have up to 64 ingredients...





http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-25/news/ct-met-lunchlady-survey-20120125_1_school-food-cps-students-lunchroom


'Lunch ladies' criticize how CPS updated school food
Workers who serve meals say most kids are not eating healthful new foods on the cafeteria menu, a survey says
January 25, 2012|By Monica Eng, Chicago Tribune reporter

Workers who serve meals in Chicago (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-25/news/ct-met-lunchlady-survey-20120125_1_school-food-cps-students-lunchroom#) Public Schools say the majority of kids are not eating the healthful new foods on the cafeteria menu, according to a confidential survey released Tuesday.


The survey, filled out by 436 so-called lunch ladies, also found that half of the respondents "rarely or never" see principals eating school (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-25/news/ct-met-lunchlady-survey-20120125_1_school-food-cps-students-lunchroom#) lunch and 61 percent feared they'd be disciplined for reporting food "quality or safety concerns to parents or kids."

...


The workers union has more than an emotional stake in ensuring that kids take lunch. Schools that move fewer meals also get fewer lunchroom workers.


Last year the Tribune reported that only about 70 percent of CPS students were taking lunch after the meals were overhauled — even though 86 percent of students qualified for free or reduced-price meals. The lunchroom survey suggests the percentage of students who actually eat the food could be even lower — only 42 percent of the workers "felt the students were eating the new food."


"A lot of students say they won't eat it because it's just not appetizing," said Linda Green, who has worked in CPS food service for 22 years. "For instance, we can't even put salt or any flavoring on the vegetables."