tk421
Posts: 8,500
Apr 11, 2011 8:00pm
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
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
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?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.
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Apr 11, 2011 9:33pm
Ridiculous. My kid would continue to pack their lunch.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Apr 12, 2011 9:22pm
Absolutely not. I would bring my kid a packed lunch in person if I had to every day.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Apr 12, 2011 9:25pm
Wow, this is bad. Packed lunches are way cheaper and healthier(for the most part) than any crap you can buy at school.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Apr 12, 2011 9:33pm
The Chicago Way at work, right Mr. President?
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Apr 12, 2011 9:43pm
I still think the Boston thing isn't a big deal.
But...this is epically dumb, as I've said before.
But...this is epically dumb, as I've said before.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Apr 12, 2011 10:02pm
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.
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
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Apr 12, 2011 10:03pm
I don't think this and the thing in Boston are the same at all.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Apr 12, 2011 10:09pm
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.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Apr 12, 2011 10:40pm
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.
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.
tk421
Posts: 8,500
Apr 12, 2011 11:02pm
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?
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Apr 12, 2011 11:24pm
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.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Apr 12, 2011 11:24pm
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.
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.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Apr 13, 2011 6:51am
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....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.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Apr 13, 2011 9:18am
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.
This Chicago thing is dumb though.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Apr 13, 2011 9:27am
One is "taking action" by not offering something.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
R
rydawg5
Posts: 2,639
Apr 13, 2011 9:53am
Im not totally against it. It gives the kids a hot lunch that has all the recommended calories and such.
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Apr 13, 2011 9:56am
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.
P
pinstriper
Posts: 225
Apr 13, 2011 10:04am
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.
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
Apr 13, 2011 10:13am
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.
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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Apr 13, 2011 10:36am
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.rydawg5;740104 wrote:Im not totally against it. It gives the kids a hot lunch that has all the recommended calories and such.
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!
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.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Apr 13, 2011 10:58am
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.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.
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
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Apr 13, 2011 11:00am
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.O-Trap;740136 wrote:People ACTUALLY think this, too!
cruiser_96
Posts: 7,536
Apr 13, 2011 12:24pm
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.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Apr 13, 2011 2:13pm
Son?