WTF?

[john9blue]

it depends on the real motivation behind this. if it was the food providers wanting to secure a monopoly on student lunches, then no. if it was the state trying to improve obesity problems by taking away personal freedoms, the i'd say it was the product of a modern liberal mindset. could be a combination of both though.

[Evil Semp]

It isn't healthy if the kid doesn't eat it. Now the kid doesn't eat it because he doesn't like it so he goes hungry. Now the school won't force them to eat it but it will force them to go hungry? It is not OK to eat junk food but it is OK for the kid to go hungry?

[john9blue]

It isn't healthy if the kid doesn't eat it. Now the kid doesn't eat it because he doesn't like it so he goes hungry. Now the school won't force them to eat it but it will force them to go hungry? It is not OK to eat junk food but it is OK for the kid to go hungry?

well, if it's healthy food that the kid chooses not to eat, then you can't blame the school if the kid goes hungry. you can lead a horse to water...

[Evil Semp]

It isn't healthy if the kid doesn't eat it. Now the kid doesn't eat it because he doesn't like it so he goes hungry. Now the school won't force them to eat it but it will force them to go hungry? It is not OK to eat junk food but it is OK for the kid to go hungry?

well, if it's healthy food that the kid chooses not to eat, then you can't blame the school if the kid goes hungry. you can lead a horse to water...

Why can't you? They won't let him bring a lunch. If they let the kid go hungry than that shows that the welfare of the kid in not their main priority. It is not the schools right to force someone to eat something they do not like or to make them go hungry because the school won't let them bring a lunch.

[jay_a2j]

The reason given is "kids need to eat better lunches." The actual reason is "our contractor wants more loot."

OBJECTION!

Your honor, that is speculation. A much as I agree with the defense, it's speculation! We must take these libs at their word. (as worthless as it is)

[jay_a2j]

It isn't healthy if the kid doesn't eat it. Now the kid doesn't eat it because he doesn't like it so he goes hungry. Now the school won't force them to eat it but it will force them to go hungry? It is not OK to eat junk food but it is OK for the kid to go hungry?

well, if it's healthy food that the kid chooses not to eat, then you can't blame the school if the kid goes hungry. you can lead a horse to water...

And you can shove the horses head into the river.

[Woodruff]

you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

I was thinking the same thing. lol

Except, again, the reason the school may have done this is to let their contractor make more money. And that's certainly not liberalism.

But that is not the reason.

The evidence actually does point to that being the reason, in my opinion.

The woman said while on a field trip she noticed some kids bringing soda and hot chips in their lunches and pursued banning packed lunches. (A liberal infringing on the rights of others)

That's the excuse, not the reason.

[Woodruff]

It isn't healthy if the kid doesn't eat it. Now the kid doesn't eat it because he doesn't like it so he goes hungry. Now the school won't force them to eat it but it will force them to go hungry? It is not OK to eat junk food but it is OK for the kid to go hungry?

well, if it's healthy food that the kid chooses not to eat, then you can't blame the school if the kid goes hungry. you can lead a horse to water...

Yeah...as dumb as I think this policy is, they really can't be blamed if the child chooses not to eat the healthier food (presuming it is) and is therefore hungry.

[Woodruff]

The reason given is "kids need to eat better lunches." The actual reason is "our contractor wants more loot."

OBJECTION!
Your honor, that is speculation. A much as I agree with the defense, it's speculation! We must take these libs at their word. (as worthless as it is)

Because you're not biased or anything.

[AAFitz]

you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

Healthy eating?

naive optimism? faith in others? submission?

not healthy eating. the article had pictures, ya know

Naive Optimism? Faith in others? Submission?

This isnt the religion thread.

[Woodruff]

It isn't healthy if the kid doesn't eat it. Now the kid doesn't eat it because he doesn't like it so he goes hungry. Now the school won't force them to eat it but it will force them to go hungry? It is not OK to eat junk food but it is OK for the kid to go hungry?

well, if it's healthy food that the kid chooses not to eat, then you can't blame the school if the kid goes hungry. you can lead a horse to water...

Why can't you? They won't let him bring a lunch. If they let the kid go hungry than that shows that the welfare of the kid in not their main priority.

I don't agree with that logic at all.

It is not the schools right to force someone to eat something they do not like or to make them go hungry because the school won't let them bring a lunch.

They're NOT "making them go hungry".

[AAFitz]

I say completely ignore the kids eating habits.

Seriously, we just got a great new health care system, and it will be much cheaper to just address health related issues due to poor nutrition later.

[Army of GOD]

First of all, I don't think any kids are going to die for not eating lunch 5 out of 7 days of the week (because they probably eat breakfast, dinner and lunch on the weekends at home). If the parents there are legitimately pissed, they should organize something so that every kid brings their own lunch, essentially boycotting the school lunches. I think that'd teach the school a lesson or two.

[AAFitz]

First of all, I don't think any kids are going to die for not eating lunch 5 out of 7 days of the week (because they probably eat breakfast, dinner and lunch on the weekends at home). If the parents there are legitimately pissed, they should organize something so that every kid brings their own lunch, essentially boycotting the school lunches. I think that'd teach the school a lesson or two.

You gotta fight...
for your right....

to be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaatty!!!!

[Army of GOD]

If anything, the government has to do something about the shit they serve at colleges. You know something is wrong when EVERYTHING you eat here (including the salad) is in the toilet at least 5 minutes after you eat it.

[Woodruff]

First of all, I don't think any kids are going to die for not eating lunch 5 out of 7 days of the week (because they probably eat breakfast, dinner and lunch on the weekends at home).

Not at my school. Here, a majority (around 61%) get two meals a day...breakfast at school and lunch at school.

[Woodruff]

If anything, the government has to do something about the shit they serve at colleges. You know something is wrong when EVERYTHING you eat here (including the salad) is in the toilet at least 5 minutes after you eat it.

I would say that it ending up in the toilet "at least 5 minutes after you eat it" is the preferred result (given the alternative), and I'm a bit confused as to why you wouldn't want that to be the case.

[AAFitz]

All I can say is, I wish to God my school offered healthier food, and taught nutrition when I was growing up, because my parents were absolutely clueless. Only when I went to college and was surrounded by healthier options and education did I come to understand healthy living, and am thankful every day I gained that experience and education at school.

When I was a kid in school, they made me do lots of things. I had to sit in my seat, do my homework, go on fire drills, etc, etc. I hardly would say school is even meant to be free, and in fact is quite the opposite in every way. Its kind of the point to help train children to be more productive members of society, and how better can they do so, than by regulating their actual food while they are there.

Given the number of actual diseases and health problems that do arise from poor nutrition, its arguable that the nutritional education is possibly the most important thing they ever could learn in many cases.

The reason we have schools is because most parents are quite incapable of teaching the essentials that are learned in school, and that certainly does not stop at food for many. I think arguing its just some liberal agenda to get some jolly out of making kids into puppets, and not a sincere effort to educate and improve their lives, the ultimate goal of most educators is really just conspiracy lunacy.

[john9blue]

It isn't healthy if the kid doesn't eat it. Now the kid doesn't eat it because he doesn't like it so he goes hungry. Now the school won't force them to eat it but it will force them to go hungry? It is not OK to eat junk food but it is OK for the kid to go hungry?

well, if it's healthy food that the kid chooses not to eat, then you can't blame the school if the kid goes hungry. you can lead a horse to water...

Why can't you? They won't let him bring a lunch. If they let the kid go hungry than that shows that the welfare of the kid in not their main priority.

well, you might as well blame my old boy scout summer camp for "letting me go hungry" even though i was provided meals and wasn't allowed to bring any from home. even though i disagree with their actions, i wouldn't say that they are starving the children (unless they don't cater to a kid who can't eat the food they give).

[jay_a2j]

First of all, I don't think any kids are going to die for not eating lunch 5 out of 7 days of the week (because they probably eat breakfast, dinner and lunch on the weekends at home). If the parents there are legitimately pissed, they should organize something so that every kid brings their own lunch, essentially boycotting the school lunches. I think that'd teach the school a lesson or two.

You gotta fight...
for your right....

to be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaatty!!!!

K that made me laugh. Memories of the Beasty Boys.

[Army of GOD]

First of all, I don't think any kids are going to die for not eating lunch 5 out of 7 days of the week (because they probably eat breakfast, dinner and lunch on the weekends at home).

Not at my school. Here, a majority (around 61%) get two meals a day...breakfast at school and lunch at school.

What...? No dinner?

[Army of GOD]

If anything, the government has to do something about the shit they serve at colleges. You know something is wrong when EVERYTHING you eat here (including the salad) is in the toilet at least 5 minutes after you eat it.

I would say that it ending up in the toilet "at least 5 minutes after you eat it" is the preferred result (given the alternative), and I'm a bit confused as to why you wouldn't want that to be the case.

Whoops. Meant most.


Also, it's not the solid kind. It's the stringy, have-to-wipe-your-ass-for-20-minutes kind.

[thegreekdog]

All I can say is, I wish to God my school offered healthier food, and taught nutrition when I was growing up, because my parents were absolutely clueless. Only when I went to college and was surrounded by healthier options and education did I come to understand healthy living, and am thankful every day I gained that experience and education at school.

When I was a kid in school, they made me do lots of things. I had to sit in my seat, do my homework, go on fire drills, etc, etc. I hardly would say school is even meant to be free, and in fact is quite the opposite in every way. Its kind of the point to help train children to be more productive members of society, and how better can they do so, than by regulating their actual food while they are there.

Given the number of actual diseases and health problems that do arise from poor nutrition, its arguable that the nutritional education is possibly the most important thing they ever could learn in many cases.

The reason we have schools is because most parents are quite incapable of teaching the essentials that are learned in school, and that certainly does not stop at food for many. I think arguing its just some liberal agenda to get some jolly out of making kids into puppets, and not a sincere effort to educate and improve their lives, the ultimate goal of most educators is really just conspiracy lunacy.

I look conspiratorily at an item that puts more money in the hands of the cafeteria contractor. While you may see this as education, I see this as cronyism (at least) and, yes, it freaks me out that a child cannot bring his or her own lunch to school and most of you think that's great.

[Timminz]

All I can say is, I wish to God my school offered healthier food, and taught nutrition when I was growing up, because my parents were absolutely clueless. Only when I went to college and was surrounded by healthier options and education did I come to understand healthy living, and am thankful every day I gained that experience and education at school.

When I was a kid in school, they made me do lots of things. I had to sit in my seat, do my homework, go on fire drills, etc, etc. I hardly would say school is even meant to be free, and in fact is quite the opposite in every way. Its kind of the point to help train children to be more productive members of society, and how better can they do so, than by regulating their actual food while they are there.

Given the number of actual diseases and health problems that do arise from poor nutrition, its arguable that the nutritional education is possibly the most important thing they ever could learn in many cases.

The reason we have schools is because most parents are quite incapable of teaching the essentials that are learned in school, and that certainly does not stop at food for many. I think arguing its just some liberal agenda to get some jolly out of making kids into puppets, and not a sincere effort to educate and improve their lives, the ultimate goal of most educators is really just conspiracy lunacy.

I look conspiratorily at an item that puts more money in the hands of the cafeteria contractor. While you may see this as education, I see this as cronyism (at least) and, yes, it freaks me out that a child cannot bring his or her own lunch to school and most of you think that's great.

I think it's more than just "most" of him who thinks that.


Or are you trying to say that most posters in this thread think it's a good thing. If so, I think you may have forgotten how to count.

[AAFitz]

All I can say is, I wish to God my school offered healthier food, and taught nutrition when I was growing up, because my parents were absolutely clueless. Only when I went to college and was surrounded by healthier options and education did I come to understand healthy living, and am thankful every day I gained that experience and education at school.

When I was a kid in school, they made me do lots of things. I had to sit in my seat, do my homework, go on fire drills, etc, etc. I hardly would say school is even meant to be free, and in fact is quite the opposite in every way. Its kind of the point to help train children to be more productive members of society, and how better can they do so, than by regulating their actual food while they are there.

Given the number of actual diseases and health problems that do arise from poor nutrition, its arguable that the nutritional education is possibly the most important thing they ever could learn in many cases.

The reason we have schools is because most parents are quite incapable of teaching the essentials that are learned in school, and that certainly does not stop at food for many. I think arguing its just some liberal agenda to get some jolly out of making kids into puppets, and not a sincere effort to educate and improve their lives, the ultimate goal of most educators is really just conspiracy lunacy.

I look conspiratorily at an item that puts more money in the hands of the cafeteria contractor. While you may see this as education, I see this as cronyism (at least) and, yes, it freaks me out that a child cannot bring his or her own lunch to school and most of you think that's great.

Actually, you don't see me saying its great. What you see is me defending that the idea of providing a healthy school lunch and providing it as a part of a nutritional education program as not necessarily being some evil cronyism, any more than teaching math and forcing children to buy a standardized textbook for each class as cronyism.

Also, I am all for regulating the types of food that the contractor may provide, the quality of them, and even the amounts he is able to charge and even profit from, as part of the contract, to insure the children are in fact receiving the best meal, and cost effective one possible within reasonable limits. There are many contractors that make their living providing supplies and services to schools, but I dont think the fact that a textbook manufacturer is chosen to provide all of the math books, hardly suggests that he will have some unfair monopoly, if children are not allowed to pick their own text book, just because it is cheaper or they like it better. And again, I am also not suggesting that the school pay more than the fair market rate for those text books, but that is a completely different matter altogether.

The choice of the math books, the art supplies, the building materials, the playground materials, and the food provided are all purchased from contractors, but suggesting that standardizing them is wrong because of this is simply faulty logic. I absolutely agree that much diligence must be put into making all of these decisions, and that is why school officials are hired and voted into office to make them. Some parents may decide they prefer their children to play on real grass rather than artificial turf. But the fact that the school board has chosen one over the other hardly implies corruption of the process. Any corruption is on an individual level, and it is the responsibility of every community to insure against corruption. The simply fact that contractors are used to provide for students, does not make it corrupt defacto. Cost vs education value is all part of the variable mix, in which the board chooses from the various options.

Im sure there are many cases where there is corruption, and one text book was chosen over another because of some impact of economic gain, but that hardly means that all standardizing of text books in a school is some great big conspiracy for a profit. The economic cost is simply part of the expense of providing adequate nutrition and nutritional education as part of an overall education for each student.

Im also not in any way suggesting that this particular program has been implemented perfectly, and actually assume there are flaws as there are with many programs. What I am pointing out however, is that the basic principle hardly needs to be considered bad and flagged, and it is just a case of picking up on a new educational approach, and in my opinion an important one, and labeling it a liberal conspiracy designed to turn a profit for a cafeteria supplier is just ridiculous grounds for deciding a new program cannot be effective. A child cannot bring a phone to school, an ipod to school, a gun to school, alcohol to school, fireworks to school, porn to school, and even certain types of clothing to school. In fact, I would suggest conservatives work to limit some of these more than liberals in some of these examples. These choices are all part of the individual educational program that each school chooses to offer. I agree some are better than others, but contend that it does not limit the viability or benefits of all programs or regulations set up by individual schools. In this case, if implemented correctly and with prudence, I simply suggest a great benefit to the students is possible. The fact that a kid wants to eat a bowl of sugar for lunch every day, does not necessarily mean we should allow it on school property, any more than we allow them to smoke or drink alcohol, or jump out of a window.
A school is for children, and children absolutely do not have the same rights as adults. We restrict those rights in many ways as a society both in school, and outside of it, and it is in the interest of protection, and education. A program to provide a nutritional meal not only in the effort to provide a healthy meal, which certainly is likely to be far more healthy and balanced than many home provided meals, as well as education as to how that meal is beneficial, is again, absolutely a worthy idea for a program, and simply should not be dismissed simply because it happens to limit the perceived rights of children, who by attending that school, have already agreed to limit their own rights, by following the many rules and procedures of that institution.

Again, Im not saying this particular contractor is great or even that particular program and menu is great. My only point is, as a means to offer nutrition and nutritional education to students as part of their overall education, is absolutely a great idea, especially given what some health care professionals call an epidemic of poor nutrition in this country. Im sure some rebelled at the idea of providing physical fitness to children as some conspiracy to sell soccer balls and gymnasiums, but I think the benefits of a physical education for students warrants the investment in these areas as well. At the same time, Im sure in individual cases, millions have been fleeced through corruption in the effort to provide these, but that does not discount their usefulness as part of a balanced educational program. There is corruption possible in every aspect of any school decision. You simply have to be prudent to fight against the corruption, not suggest that no education be given because of this potential.

Further, if you suggest that a program could be set up to insure nutritional quality for children while still allowing parents to provide those meals, as long as they fit into the nutritional guidelines, I would be the first to suggest it is very possible to make that work. But there we are simply discussing the individual plans and choices which is a completely different subject than simply discussing the idea of providing a nutritional education program for children. Again, given the state of the health of children in this country, it may turn out to be the most important part of the educational program itself for many of them.