Here you go, for those of you who thought Boston banning soft drinks wasn't a big deal, what's your take on this one? Students MUST eat what the schools provide or go hungry. Apparently parents have absolutely no say in their kids lives now.

Notice this part right here. I love this quote. Yeah, she did it for the children alright.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

So, you parents I ask you, would you allow your Principal to tell you that your child must eat the school food or go hungry?

Ridiculous. My kid would continue to pack their lunch.

Absolutely not. I would bring my kid a packed lunch in person if I had to every day.

Wow, this is bad. Packed lunches are way cheaper and healthier(for the most part) than any crap you can buy at school.

The Chicago Way at work, right Mr. President?

I still think the Boston thing isn't a big deal.

But...this is epically dumb, as I've said before.

First of all, I just want to say that I don't really care what happens in Boston or Chicago.

BUT...

There seems to be a ever increasing creep of people like the mayor in Boston and this principal in Chicago,(not to mention the starburst fruit loops in Ca.) that are getting put into positions of importance.

WTF is wrong with people? They've done lost their minds.

*EDIT

And if this doesn't make people stop and consider what it is that they want to be complacent about, this includes myself, then we deserve what we let slide by.

I don't think this and the thing in Boston are the same at all.

I Wear Pants;739745 wrote:I don't think this and the thing in Boston are the same at all.

Of course they are. In both instances, you've got "authority" claiming to know better than you what's best -- and arbitrarily taking action.

As I stated on the Boston thread. I could care less what idiotic things some want to do in a locality like Chicago or a state like California (those nutbags just passed legislation mandating a 1/3 of their energy come from renewables within 10yrs). Just don't ask the rest of us to bail you out for your stupidity.

My kids are not forced to go to that school in Chicago. 99% of my daughters lunches are home made. My boys eat mostly what the school dishes out. Here in rural Ohio we are still free to choose. I can mostly laugh about this kind of stuff. But on the other hand it does scare me that these loons are running around in this country. God help us if they ever got their reigns on the federal government and force this lunacy on all of us.

majorspark;739786 wrote:As I stated on the Boston thread. I could care less what idiotic things some want to do in a locality like Chicago or a state like California (those nutbags just passed legislation mandating a 1/3 of their energy come from renewables within 10yrs). Just don't ask the rest of us to bail you out for your stupidity.

My kids are not forced to go to that school in Chicago. 99% of my daughters lunches are home made. My boys eat mostly what the school dishes out. Here in rural Ohio we are still free to choose. I can mostly laugh about this kind of stuff. But on the other hand it does scare me that these loons are running around in this country. God help us if they ever got their reigns on the federal government and force this lunacy on all of us.

So, what would you do if the principal of your kid's school did the same thing?

tk421;739811 wrote:So, what would you do if the principal of your kid's school did the same thing?

I would let my voice be heard. I could easily get a face to face meeting with him to express my disagreement. Virtually impossible to get a face to face with the Governor much less the President of the United States. I would only vote for school board members who stood against this type of lunacy. If all else failed I would send them to another school district who did not subscribe to this tripe.

No. This Chicago thing is a case of what you just said.

The Boston thing is them is quite different IMO as they aren't taking away your choice of what to eat/drink. Just changing what they offer.

I Wear Pants;739830 wrote:No. This Chicago thing is a case of what you just said.

The Boston thing is them is quite different IMO as they aren't taking away your choice of what to eat/drink. Just changing what they offer.

Agreed. The incidents have similarities, but are not the same. I'm kinda in the same boat on the Boston thing...I'm not sure that's as big a deal as it's being made out to be. Chicago on the other hand....

Like, I'm willing to accept that the Boston thing is possibly really dumb. But I don't see it as a shining example of the evils of socialism and impending death of our country via rampant liberalism that many here seem to be espousing.

This Chicago thing is dumb though.

Writerbuckeye;739750 wrote:Of course they are. In both instances, you've got "authority" claiming to know better than you what's best -- and arbitrarily taking action.

One is "taking action" by not offering something.

If my school had been offering matso, and they stopped offering it, but maintained the students' rights to bring it, then they haven't infringed on anything.

This instance, however, is not only stupid, but DOES infringe on parents' rights to effectively be responsible for their child's dietary nutrition. Blatant violation of rights, and should be taken to court.

I Wear Pants;740072 wrote:Like, I'm willing to accept that the Boston thing is possibly really dumb. But I don't see it as a shining example of the evils of socialism and impending death of our country via rampant liberalism that many here seem to be espousing.

Yeah, I wasn't espousing that the Boston thing was a good idea. I thought it was an idiotic thing to do. I was just pointing out that it wasn't infringing on rights.

This, however, crosses that boundary, and needs to be addressed as such.

A public building has a right to choose what it does and doesn't offer. However, it does NOT have the right to mandate my lunch choice, should I choose to bring my own, let alone prohibit me from bringing anything.

Im not totally against it. It gives the kids a hot lunch that has all the recommended calories and such.

O-Trap;740078 wrote:This instance, however, is not only stupid, but DOES infringe on parents' rights to effectively be responsible for their child's dietary nutrition.

Nah nah nah!

Don't you remember it takes a village to raise a child? In this case, don't the "people" have more wisdom about what's good for the youngster? The parents are clearly clueless, so get out of the way and let the "experts" in schools take over. Sheesh.

It may give the kids the correct nutritional value in their meals...but it sends the wrong message to them at a very early age - that the school (and ultimately the government) will take care of you and your mom/dad are not in charge of everything. Parents are responsible for thier kids, and in charge of thier lives until they hit 18, then they can ease off the reigns a little. The school needs to do it's job and teach, stay out of the parenting role.

I think the one thing we (the public, the teachers, the administrations) have lost sight of in this country is the schools exist to help ME (THE PARENT) educate my child. Schools are not a day care. They are not a place to provide food. They are not - primarily - a social outlet for the next generation. Primarily, they serve the role of reinforcing what I teach my child at home.

When schools become PRIMARILY about any other thing, this is one stop on the slippery slope. Where it ends is anyone's guess. I have a feeling, wards of the state is, if not at the bottom, somewhere near the bottom.

rydawg5;740104 wrote:Im not totally against it. It gives the kids a hot lunch that has all the recommended calories and such.

Those things are available without being forced. Anything from food allergies (gluten?) to religious practices (little boy with strict Orthodox Jewish parents offered pork?) to parents simply wishing to instill a particular dietary habit in their child (vegetarians?) are essentially disregarded with this.

I have no beef, whatsoever, with a school offering a well-balanced meal for the students. However, I take GREAT EXCEPTION to the notion that the schools have the right to take that responsibility away from the parents without the parents' consent!

BGFalcons82;740108 wrote:Nah nah nah!

Don't you remember it takes a village to raise a child? In this case, don't the "people" have more wisdom about what's good for the youngster? The parents are clearly clueless, so get out of the way and let the "experts" in schools take over. Sheesh.

People ACTUALLY think this, too!

BGFalcons82;740108 wrote:Nah nah nah!

Don't you remember it takes a village to raise a child? In this case, don't the "people" have more wisdom about what's good for the youngster? The parents are clearly clueless, so get out of the way and let the "experts" in schools take over. Sheesh.

Ughh! Sugh bad memories. Believe it or not, there was a time when I (late teens/early twenties) totally subscribed to this point of view and fit the new wave liberal mold completely. Back then - I honestly can't say if I would be for this or not. I'd like to think that I wouldn't have been, but....I didn't have as much personal comparative history to work with either. Which was weird because I came from such an old school conservative democrat family.
Thankfully I started making my turning point soon after Clinton's 2nd. term in regards to basically holding issues up side by side and scrutinizing the differences more.

Ok, confession time is over

O-Trap;740136 wrote:People ACTUALLY think this, too!

All too sad but true. I just referenced myself from back in the day where I just might have bought into this train of thought.

CenterBHSFan;740153 wrote:Ughh! Sugh bad memories. Believe it or not, there was a time when I (late teens/early twenties) totally subscribed to this point of view and fit the new wave liberal mold completely. Back then - I honestly can't say if I would be for this or not. I'd like to think that I wouldn't have been, but....I didn't have as much personal comparative history to work with either. Which was weird because I came from such an old school conservative democrat family.
Thankfully I started making my turning point soon after Clinton's 2nd. term in regards to basically holding issues up side by side and scrutinizing the differences more.

Ok, confession time is over

Your sins are forgiven you. Go in peace, my son.

Son?