Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Obama "go away" speech

  1. #21
    New Jersey unicorn authority FSchmertz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    I'm not here
    Posts
    44,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliesheen View Post
    Heaven forbid we expect parents to send their children to school with food. You libs just love being Mammy to your poor colored, unwashed pets. With other people's money.
    Quote Originally Posted by posthuman View Post
    The article posted by PSA was about an incident in Dunham, Ontario.
    There you go introducing facts again in the Chump error....er.....era.

  2. #22
    Does that make me gay? stymiegreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    30,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by biker View Post
    I never had a problem with the school lunch thing. Was it a govt over reach? Sure was, but some govt abuses you go to battle over and this wasnt one of them
    Its a fact that some parents either can't feed their kids or they feed them shitty food. I think a kid should at least get taught by the school some form of a nutritional diet plan. Now, that doesn't speak to whether any particular school implements a shitty program or has people that don't give a shit so they put out crappy food. I don't think it should be outrageous that a school at least attempts to show some dietary guidelines. Obviously if the kids are given their preference alot of them are gonna prefer pizza and french fries every day.

  3. #23
    Potato marinating in piss s.murph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The happiest place on earth?
    Posts
    76,664

    Default

    If hot dogs, pizza & Jell-o were good enough for me, it should be good enough for them. The problem is fucking kids today are discouraged from being active. Here in Florida the teachers union advocated doing away with recess. How stupid is that? Just so teachers could have a shorter work day. After a year of battles and parent protests they finally settled on a 20 minute recess. Big fucking deal!

  4. #24
    I'm With Her, Hilldawg 2020 charliesheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Actualizing Hypocrites
    Posts
    40,789

    Default

    Recess was the shit. Except for the rules. No tackle football. No snowballs. No chicken fights. No real baseballs.

    Hate to think what kids are up against now.

  5. #25
    Potato marinating in piss s.murph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The happiest place on earth?
    Posts
    76,664

    Default

    Shit. There were serious childhood injuries every day during our grammar school recess.

  6. #26
    UJ Irregular
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by posthuman View Post
    The article posted by PSA was about an incident in Dunham, Ontario.
    Yeah, cause a simple search doesn't reveal this is happening in America too.

    /roll

    The point remains. Its one thing to offer free, reduced meal plans for poor families. It is quite another to toss food brought from home claiming its not good enough. Especially when school food uses below grade F foods, like 'pink slime'.

    And while I can respect the idea of picking your battles, this type of behavior from schools/gov is teaching a whole generation of kids that they (and their parents) don't have final say in their lives.

    Again, this should bother people...

  7. #27
    Muff diving bikini bottom bay for Patrick's star fish Zach10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The hot, sticky, south
    Posts
    9,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PSA View Post
    Yeah, cause a simple search doesn't reveal this is happening in America too.

    /roll

    The point remains. Its one thing to offer free, reduced meal plans for poor families. It is quite another to toss food brought from home claiming its not good enough. Especially when school food uses below grade F foods, like 'pink slime'.

    And while I can respect the idea of picking your battles, this type of behavior from schools/gov is teaching a whole generation of kids that they (and their parents) don't have final say in their lives.

    Again, this should bother people...
    This is another case of misplaced blame though. The actual law passed by the USDA concerns lunches served by the schools themselves - basically mandating that fruit and veggies be part of the menu for meals covered under the NSLP. Individual cases where school officials threw away student lunches had nothing to with USDA regulation and everything to do with either overreach on the part of the school official or specific rules written by that particular school. Take it up with the school board in charge of the specific case you have a problem with. The fed simply isn't involved at that level. Of course, this isn't what you'll hear from the conservative pundits, who have convinced you and others like you that the mandate is an enormous overreach by the Obama administration.

    So yeah, not only should you pick your battles, you should also make sure you understand what your actual battle is and who it is you're battling with.

  8. #28
    Does that make me gay? stymiegreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    30,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PSA View Post
    Yeah, cause a simple search doesn't reveal this is happening in America too.

    /roll

    The point remains. Its one thing to offer free, reduced meal plans for poor families. It is quite another to toss food brought from home claiming its not good enough. Especially when school food uses below grade F foods, like 'pink slime'.

    And while I can respect the idea of picking your battles, this type of behavior from schools/gov is teaching a whole generation of kids that they (and their parents) don't have final say in their lives.

    Again, this should bother people...
    I think you're conflating the issue. Michelle Obama being an advocate for healthier food in schools doesn't mean she can single handedly go in and run every shitty school with shitty ideas and overreach. Its inane if you are banning bag lunches...the concept that if the school serves food it should have nutrition standards shouldn't really be an outrageous one. But in its implementation for various reasons alot of schools end up still serving shit. Again, not really sure how that falls on Michelle Obama. Its weird that it makes some people angry that someone would advocate showing kids how to eat better and in many cases grow their own food. But if you've ever seen the Jamie Oliver show where he goes into schools and tries to advocate healthier menus its an uphill battlle for sure.

  9. #29
    Muff diving bikini bottom bay for Patrick's star fish Zach10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The hot, sticky, south
    Posts
    9,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiegreen View Post
    I think you're conflating the issue. Michelle Obama being an advocate for healthier food in schools doesn't mean she can single handedly go in and run every shitty school with shitty ideas and overreach. Its inane if you are banning bag lunches...the concept that if the school serves food it should have nutrition standards shouldn't really be an outrageous one. But in its implementation for various reasons alot of schools end up still serving shit. Again, not really sure how that falls on Michelle Obama. Its weird that it makes some people angry that someone would advocate showing kids how to eat better and in many cases grow their own food. But if you've ever seen the Jamie Oliver show where he goes into schools and tries to advocate healthier menus its an uphill battlle for sure.
    That's the issue though. People have been using this as an example of "nanny state" overreach for years, but if you take just 10 minutes to actually look into it, it becomes clear that the problems are all at the local level. It's got nothing to do with Michelle Obama at all. The mandate only applies to lunches served by the schools, and even then, only lunches subsidized under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). It says nothing about lunches packed by parents and brought to school by the students. Yet 4 years after going into effect we continue to hear people bitching about this. People are lazy. Nobody bothers to do any research any more.

  10. #30
    UJ Irregular
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zach10k View Post
    This is another case of misplaced blame though. The actual law passed by the USDA concerns lunches served by the schools themselves - basically mandating that fruit and veggies be part of the menu for meals covered under the NSLP. Individual cases where school officials threw away student lunches had nothing to with USDA regulation and everything to do with either overreach on the part of the school official or specific rules written by that particular school. Take it up with the school board in charge of the specific case you have a problem with. The fed simply isn't involved at that level. Of course, this isn't what you'll hear from the conservative pundits, who have convinced you and others like you that the mandate is an enormous overreach by the Obama administration.

    So yeah, not only should you pick your battles, you should also make sure you understand what your actual battle is and who it is you're battling with.
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiegreen View Post
    I think you're conflating the issue. Michelle Obama being an advocate for healthier food in schools doesn't mean she can single handedly go in and run every shitty school with shitty ideas and overreach. Its inane if you are banning bag lunches...the concept that if the school serves food it should have nutrition standards shouldn't really be an outrageous one. But in its implementation for various reasons alot of schools end up still serving shit. Again, not really sure how that falls on Michelle Obama. Its weird that it makes some people angry that someone would advocate showing kids how to eat better and in many cases grow their own food. But if you've ever seen the Jamie Oliver show where he goes into schools and tries to advocate healthier menus its an uphill battlle for sure.
    No, I feel you both.

    The thing to remember is: Dept of Education sets a lot of these policies.

    Now, you are correct, nowhere does Michelle Obama's 'new standards' say "if a child brings food from home, toss it"; but, as always this is a multi-faceted problem that started at the top. And, you are also correct in saying it is an uphill fight, as seen here:

    New school lunch standards implemented as a result of First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign have led to more than 1 million children leaving the lunch line, according to a new report.

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a wide-ranging audit of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act nutrition standards last week, finding 48 out of 50 states faced challenges complying with Mrs. Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.

    The new standards led to kids throwing out their fruits and vegetables, student boycotts, higher lunch costs, and odd food pairings such as “cheese stick with shrimp” in order for schools to comply with the complicated rules.

    The National School Lunch Program saw a sharp decline in participation once the healthy standards went into effect during the 2012-2013 school year. A total of 1,086,000 students stopped buying school lunch, after participation had increased steadily for nearly a decade.

    The report found that 321 districts left the National School Lunch Program altogether, many of which cited the new standards as a factor.
    Source
    But these policies, no matter how much "good intention" is involved, have caused issues. Schools get a mandate to follow certain rules or lose federal funding (granted, the fact the fed is involved at has always irked me, school funding largely by the State and below- why take Fed money if its such a small percent and it ties your hands in the process), so when the students start to resist- the school pushes back.

    This then leads to food tossing, or more commonly (probably):
    The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.
    That's not cool. (No clue how chicken nuggets are ever considered healthy either, good chance those are pink slime).

    Worse:
    [W]hat concerned me was that I got a letter from the principal and it says students who do not bring a healthy lunch will be offered the missing portions which may result in a fee from the cafeteria.
    Source
    Additional fees, forced meals, and unapproved food thrown away by school officials largely because of the Michelle Obama standards.

    For a country that prides itself as the land of the free... these 'learning institutions' sure seem Draconian to me.

  11. #31
    Does that make me gay? stymiegreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    30,253

    Default

    Watch the Jamie Oliver show Food Revolution. It takes SOME effort from the schools and the parents to get buy in from the kids. But most of the time the people cooking the food were either lazy or resistant to change so they would just cook slop versions of vegetables and then just sit around surprised when the kids didn't want to eat them. And the parents were largely the same...they didn't want to be told what to do so they just waited for every opening to declare the program the worst thing ever. So yes, just declaring standards and waiting for miracles to happen will result in angry parents and dissatisfied kids most of the time. You need a group of parents and teachers that actually want to change the way kids eat. Instead they just blame Michelle Obama because they are too unwilling to actually do anything meaningful for their kids nutritional habits.

  12. #32
    Muff diving bikini bottom bay for Patrick's star fish Zach10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The hot, sticky, south
    Posts
    9,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PSA View Post
    No, I feel you both.

    The thing to remember is: Dept of Education sets a lot of these policies.

    Now, you are correct, nowhere does Michelle Obama's 'new standards' say "if a child brings food from home, toss it"; but, as always this is a multi-faceted problem that started at the top. And, you are also correct in saying it is an uphill fight, as seen here:



    But these policies, no matter how much "good intention" is involved, have caused issues. Schools get a mandate to follow certain rules or lose federal funding (granted, the fact the fed is involved at has always irked me, school funding largely by the State and below- why take Fed money if its such a small percent and it ties your hands in the process), so when the students start to resist- the school pushes back.

    This then leads to food tossing, or more commonly (probably):


    That's not cool. (No clue how chicken nuggets are ever considered healthy either, good chance those are pink slime).

    Worse:


    Additional fees, forced meals, and unapproved food thrown away by school officials largely because of the Michelle Obama standards.

    For a country that prides itself as the land of the free... these 'learning institutions' sure seem Draconian to me.
    Ok, this is a much more reasonable criticism of the program. There is a legitimate argument to be made that such complications make this kind of program more harmful than helpful. Still, I think some degree of resistance and difficulty should be expected and accepted as part of the cost of change. And it's never going to be possible to simply make kids like to eat vegetables when the kid sitting next to them is chowing down on pizza, but if it's something we're subsidizing as taxpayers I think its reasonable that we set some sort of standards. I wouldn't want my taxpayer dollars funding daily bags of Doritos for our kids, you know? And without some level of oversight, you might have federal dollars in one state going towards greasy processed foods while in another state the kids are eating fresh produce, which is, for lack of a better term, kind of unfair. The real debate here is to what extent do we regulate this stuff - is it overreach to require a fruit and vegetable in each subsidized meal?

  13. #33
    UJ Irregular
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiegreen View Post
    Watch the Jamie Oliver show Food Revolution.
    I will check that out. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zach10k View Post
    The real debate here is to what extent do we regulate this stuff - is it overreach to require a fruit and vegetable in each subsidized meal?
    No, not on its face.

    **

    Personally, as a general rule of thumb, I don't care for federal involvement in state/local issues.

    More to the point though, school finance as a whole seems askew to me; currently wealthy districts get more money than poor districts (largely because high qualified teachers work in the better schools, and therefore more money goes there). Worse, (poor) schools often have to take loans as part of their (already smaller) budgets and, not unlike the US budget, end up allocated a chunk of their budget to just paying the interest on those debts.

    Schools, seeing shortfalls, then turn to booster clubs which are almost always for profit and take the bulk of the money earned by these fundraisers while adding stipulations on how the little money the school got can be spent (usually being sports related funding).

    The fed response, naturally, is throw more money at the problem- with strings attached.

    I feel a better method would be to waive all school debt, not allow new loans to be taken, and for schools to get even amount of funding within their respective states. Side fundraising projects should also not be from private companies taking the lions share of students efforts.

    Doing this will create more money for the schools that need it most, and -to bring this full circle back to the topic at hand- ideally allow them to handle the food issue without federal assistance. Because all schools should have healthy lunches, no kid should go hungry (unless by choice), and the ones who ultimately should be overseeing this are the PTAs.

    But, realistically the system will not readily make these kinds of changes, parents in poor districts often don't care about their children's educations, and many school employees/teachers don't either. To truly improve education, school nutrition, and general activity levels in young people would take an impressive level of dedicated work by a LOT of people- and at the end of the day most just don't care enough. As with all things it is easier to either slurp the bullshit pretending the fed/state/local school boards are doing all they can to help our kids, or sit from your couch while bitching at the TV acting like the fed/state/local school boards aren't doing enough, and that it is all their fault.

    When really, at the heart of the issue -> most people are just too damn lazy and distracted to properly care and act. Even when its about their own children's education and health.

  14. #34
    Muff diving bikini bottom bay for Patrick's star fish Zach10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The hot, sticky, south
    Posts
    9,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PSA View Post
    I will check that out. Thanks.



    No, not on its face.

    **

    Personally, as a general rule of thumb, I don't care for federal involvement in state/local issues.

    More to the point though, school finance as a whole seems askew to me; currently wealthy districts get more money than poor districts (largely because high qualified teachers work in the better schools, and therefore more money goes there). Worse, (poor) schools often have to take loans as part of their (already smaller) budgets and, not unlike the US budget, end up allocated a chunk of their budget to just paying the interest on those debts.

    Schools, seeing shortfalls, then turn to booster clubs which are almost always for profit and take the bulk of the money earned by these fundraisers while adding stipulations on how the little money the school got can be spent (usually being sports related funding).

    The fed response, naturally, is throw more money at the problem- with strings attached.

    I feel a better method would be to waive all school debt, not allow new loans to be taken, and for schools to get even amount of funding within their respective states. Side fundraising projects should also not be from private companies taking the lions share of students efforts.

    Doing this will create more money for the schools that need it most, and -to bring this full circle back to the topic at hand- ideally allow them to handle the food issue without federal assistance. Because all schools should have healthy lunches, no kid should go hungry (unless by choice), and the ones who ultimately should be overseeing this are the PTAs.

    But, realistically the system will not readily make these kinds of changes, parents in poor districts often don't care about their children's educations, and many school employees/teachers don't either. To truly improve education, school nutrition, and general activity levels in young people would take an impressive level of dedicated work by a LOT of people- and at the end of the day most just don't care enough. As with all things it is easier to either slurp the bullshit pretending the fed/state/local school boards are doing all they can to help our kids, or sit from your couch while bitching at the TV acting like the fed/state/local school boards aren't doing enough, and that it is all their fault.

    When really, at the heart of the issue -> most people are just too damn lazy and distracted to properly care and act. Even when its about their own children's education and health.
    I agree with basically all of this. Well said. I think your point about the funding disparity is something that is seriously overlooked. Back in college I worked a thereaputic staff support position for troubled kids in elementary school. At one point I had two main cases - one kid at a public school in an affluent neighborhood and another kid at a public school in what was basically the ghetto. The difference between the two schools was pretty shocking.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •