Topix Chitown Regulars
Sam I Am

Palatine, IL

#62133 Feb 15, 2012
cycle003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everyone is as good of a parent as you are, though. So, if a kid is sent to school with twinkies and coke for lunch everyday, you don't think the school should interfere? You think it's good public health policy to stand back and let the obesity epidemic continue to worsen?
It doesn't matter. The obesity epidemic is not about what a parent send for their child's lunch. If a parent sends a kid to school with Twinkies and Coke, then the kid is also having crap for breakfast and dinner and snacks. Healthiness is not about one meal a day, it's a lifestyle, and if you put veggies in front of a kid who is used to Coke and cookies, it is a waste 'cause they're not going to eat it and you can't make 'em. It begins with education.

Since: Jun 09

Verona, WI

#62134 Feb 15, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem so much with that, but what you don't realize is that most of these loser parents are out drinking and smoking cigarettes, and doing all sorts of other sh1t with their money or their kids money.
If your children are getting free lunches or government aid, you should be black listed from buying alcohol or cigarettes. I would SO f'ing love to see that happen. Also if you assist someone who shouldn't be having those things, you're a$$ should get a huge fine.
The thing that bothers me most about liberal programs is they demand ZERO accountability.
What happened to your stated desire to look after the children. If you prohibited people from buying cigarettes and alcohol if their children received free lunches, it would result in an increase of students needing a free lunch who don't get it.

Since: Jun 09

Verona, WI

#62135 Feb 15, 2012
cheluzal wrote:
The amount of food thrown away at my school would make a grown man weep.
I go get breakfast (free for every kid) right near the end of the time because one awesome lady will give me all the grits and sausage they have left, rather than toss them.
I love my cheese grits...lol...
As a teacher and a conservative, I'm actually interested in your opinion on this. Do you oppose children having their home-packed lunches supplemented?

Since: Aug 09

Madison, WI

#62136 Feb 15, 2012
Matilda77 wrote:
So, they're in the process of converting all the cubicle space in my very large office building to "collaborative space". Meaning, you work in groups depending on projects, you don't get much, if any, personal space like your own desk, yadda yadda.
So, my floor is currently under construction and I'm not needed on my project right now, so I'm just chilling in the cafeteria, as are a lot of other people. I'm coughing (I think the cool, dry air from hockey does that), the guys on either side of me are sniffling. Can't wait to see how working "collaboratively" (gag) increases the amount of sick time people use. At least when we had our own desks, the germs were somewhat confined.
I'm old enough to see these trends to back and forth multiple times now. It seems like every few years someone writes a new book - it must be discussed at conventions everywhere - middle managers come back with new terms ("paradigm shift" or "thinking outside the box"...I don't remember them all anymore).

If you have offices, the company changes to cubicles. Then a few years later, they have open spaces. Then they go back to private spaces. It seems when the last building is remodelled, it's time for a new concept to begin.

And it's not just businesses that do this. I've seen high schools go from closed campuses, to open campuses and back multiple times.

Shopping malls go from open to enclosed to open.

And everytime, a whole new generation of employees is subject to this "New concept".

At my age, i just sit back and chuckle a bit.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#62137 Feb 15, 2012
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter. The obesity epidemic is not about what a parent send for their child's lunch. If a parent sends a kid to school with Twinkies and Coke, then the kid is also having crap for breakfast and dinner and snacks. Healthiness is not about one meal a day, it's a lifestyle, and if you put veggies in front of a kid who is used to Coke and cookies, it is a waste 'cause they're not going to eat it and you can't make 'em. It begins with education.
I know that at the program we send N to, there are kids who's parents *can't afford* a good meal for their kids. I'd much rather help pay for a child to eat so that their mind can be ready to learn and not distract the rest of the classroom because they can't focus on an empty tummy.

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62138 Feb 15, 2012
cycle003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everyone is as good of a parent as you are, though. So, if a kid is sent to school with twinkies and coke for lunch everyday, you don't think the school should interfere? You think it's good public health policy to stand back and let the obesity epidemic continue to worsen?
Healthy by whose standards? Some government f’tard bureaucrat’s?

My lunch would fail their standards every f’ing day, just about. 95% of the time I have a sandwich or a health choice meal and a greek yogurt every day for lunch, and that seems pretty healthy to me. I have a protein shake for breakfast, with a bunch of weight lifting pills that contain, vitamins, creatine, caffeine, and nitrix oxide. That seems pretty healthy to me too. I’m sure it wouldn’t be healthy by some dipsh1t bureaucrat’s standards in Washington.

Why shouldn’t your same logic apply TO ME and the lunch police be able to come in and yank my lunch from me and make me buy a lunch that has one serving of meat, one serving of dairy, one serving of grain, and 2 servings of vegetables? I mean, if they don’t couldn’t this contribute to the obesity epidemic? What if people aren’t like me and they eat 5 krispy crème donuts for breakfast and a Big Mac for lunch, every day. Then when they get older, and go on medicare, we will all pay more for their poor health choices?

As I see it, part of the price of a free society is allowing people to be f’ ups, including with their children, I feel, absent abuse. I don’t even feel that the lunch provided by that mother came anywhere close to rising to the level of abuse. It seemed PERFECTLY HEALTHY to me.

What I hate the most is because some people are naturally their own worst enemy and complete f’ ups, that this nanny state b.s. gets thrust upon ALL OF US because of this mamby pamby liberal,“think of the children” line of thinking that some people have.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#62139 Feb 15, 2012
cycle003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you being serious or just stoking the fires?
Both.
cycle003 wrote:
Considering all the things on which our tax dollars are spent, I think providing healthy food to children is a worthwhile cause.
Its one thing if you want to fund providing food for underprivileged children who otherwise could not get lunch, its completely another thing when the scool is taking it upon themselves to do so because the parent's lunch does not conform to their nutritional standards. Let ME worry about what my kids eat.
cycle003 wrote:
The implementation was not good (and maybe it's not practically possible), but in theory, I'm OK with the rule to supplement kids lunches. Obesity in children is a serious problem and it's partly because parents don't provide their children with healthy options. I'm OK with the school/gov't doing so.
What makes you think that kids will choose the healthy options? This mom packed a sandwich. This kid was given some chicken nuggets by the school. She chose to NOT eat the sandwich and instead eat the nuggets. AND she she skipped the veggie. The very thing they said she was lacking. MOST Kids are not gonna choose the healthiest option. They are gonna choose the tastiest. Just because there is a healthy option added to their plate does not mean it will end up in their bellies.

Obesity is an epidemic? Its an epidemic that needs to be handled by PARENTS.

Since: Jun 09

Verona, WI

#62140 Feb 15, 2012
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter. The obesity epidemic is not about what a parent send for their child's lunch. If a parent sends a kid to school with Twinkies and Coke, then the kid is also having crap for breakfast and dinner and snacks. Healthiness is not about one meal a day, it's a lifestyle, and if you put veggies in front of a kid who is used to Coke and cookies, it is a waste 'cause they're not going to eat it and you can't make 'em. It begins with education.
It does begin with education. It also involves children having availability of balanced meals. They aren't going to eat healthy food if it's NEVER provided. In this case, they were targeting very young children, possibly before their habits have been established.

Even though we do provide balanced meals for my kid, she has picked up a lot of her healthy eating habits from school. I still have trouble comprehending that she eats beets at school.

I just don't think we can leave this entirely up to parents. The current state of children's health seems to be evidence of that. No one is forcing kids to eat anything. This rule is not taking away the food that parents pack. At worst, it's wasting tax payer money, but I suspect such programs are likely to improve the health of children.

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62141 Feb 15, 2012
cycle003 wrote:
<quoted text>
What happened to your stated desire to look after the children. If you prohibited people from buying cigarettes and alcohol if their children received free lunches, it would result in an increase of students needing a free lunch who don't get it.
How so? As I see it, their parents wouldn't be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol. Throw their a$$ in jail for fraud if they do so. The f' if the rest of us should be buying their kids lunch if they have money for that sh1t. It's by fraud per se, as far as I'm concerned.
Newt Romney

United States

#62142 Feb 15, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem so much with that, but what you don't realize is that most of these loser parents are out drinking and smoking cigarettes, and doing all sorts of other sh1t with their money or their kids money.
If your children are getting free lunches or government aid, you should be black listed from buying alcohol or cigarettes. I would SO f'ing love to see that happen. Also if you assist someone who shouldn't be having those things, you're a$$ should get a huge fine.
The thing that bothers me most about liberal programs is they demand ZERO accountability.
Wow. How *small* does government have to get to do all these *family values* things you people pay lip service to before you realize that is actually HUGE, totalitarian government?

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#62143 Feb 15, 2012
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter. The obesity epidemic is not about what a parent send for their child's lunch. If a parent sends a kid to school with Twinkies and Coke, then the kid is also having crap for breakfast and dinner and snacks. Healthiness is not about one meal a day, it's a lifestyle, and if you put veggies in front of a kid who is used to Coke and cookies, it is a waste 'cause they're not going to eat it and you can't make 'em. It begins with education.
this

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62144 Feb 15, 2012
expanding secret admirer wrote:
<quoted text> I'm getting a little chubby in my pants....
You said "little." <snickers>

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#62145 Feb 15, 2012
yanno,
for being anti gun, you sure think a lot of people need to be shot.

Your the person people should fear having a gun, not me!
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not giving it to the kids. They are selling it, forcibly. Or did you forget the part about the school charging a fee when they "give" the students food? A) They have no business forcibly selling children food. B) It is a waste of administrative time and resources. C) It is a waste of money as the kids are not going to eat what they don't want to eat. So the school is charging for food that ultimately, in most cases, gets tossed. Anyone who hand a hand in implementing that rule should be shot.
cheluzal

Plant City, FL

#62146 Feb 15, 2012
cycle003 wrote:
<quoted text>
As a teacher and a conservative, I'm actually interested in your opinion on this. Do you oppose children having their home-packed lunches supplemented?
Not necessarily, but it's a very slippery and difficult slope.
My school is the largest in the county, a county that is the 2nd largest in FL and the 8th largest in the SE US.
We have over 1,600 students and the lunchtime 30 minutes is crazy. There is NO way anyone could monitor lunches brought. You can't even monitor lunched bought. Some kids eat chips and dip every single day.
I do think schools should promote a healthier lifestyle and all the nuggets went baked instead of fried. But even us teachers can't have white bread. Only wheat. I hate wheat. So I bring my lunch (school food sucks anyway).
There are no vegetables readily available and no one can force a kid to eat it if it's on a tray.
Don't even get me started on all the freaking donuts and pizza they use to bribe kids: donuts for the homeroom who brings in the most [insert new weekly charity/fundraiser here]. Only thing I agree with Michelle Obama on, lol.
cheluzal

Plant City, FL

#62147 Feb 15, 2012
*Whoops--my school is the largest MIDDLE school in the county. ;)

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#62148 Feb 15, 2012
problem is dude, your ok with ALL of the govt programs. I have yet to hear you voice disagreement with any of them.

As for fat kids....Who cares? Fat kid gets free lunch while mom drives a Benz and gets her nails painted? Fthat!
cycle003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you being serious or just stoking the fires?
Considering all the things on which our tax dollars are spent, I think providing healthy food to children is a worthwhile cause.
The implementation was not good (and maybe it's not practically possible), but in theory, I'm OK with the rule to supplement kids lunches. Obesity in children is a serious problem and it's partly because parents don't provide their children with healthy options. I'm OK with the school/gov't doing so.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#62149 Feb 15, 2012
cycle003 wrote:
No one is forcing kids to eat anything. This rule is not taking away the food that parents pack. At worst, it's wasting tax payer money, but I suspect such programs are likely to improve the health of children.
So given the option to eat healthy foods vs non-healthy, what do you think the return rate is? 1 kid out of 10 choosing to eat the veggies? 3? 7? My GUESS would be more than half the veggies and healthy food would get tossed. Hell, cheluzal just told you that's seems to be exactly what happens at her school.

You don't want to leave it up to parents? I don't want my parental authority circumvented aqnd my tax dollars wasted because some other parents are knuckleheads.

Since: Aug 09

Madison, WI

#62150 Feb 15, 2012
cycle003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though we do provide balanced meals for my kid, she has picked up a lot of her healthy eating habits from school. I still have trouble comprehending that she eats beets at school.
I just don't think we can leave this entirely up to parents. The current state of children's health seems to be evidence of that. No one is forcing kids to eat anything. This rule is not taking away the food that parents pack. At worst, it's wasting tax payer money, but I suspect such programs are likely to improve the health of children.
ha, out our school, it is the opposite.

we live in a great school system north of Milwaukee. A couple years ago, there was a referendum to build new cafeterias at the elementary schools. They were completed Feb2011. I asked the principal at the open house for it if they were going to have hot lunches.(I have kids, 1st grade, K5, and K4 plus a preschooler). She looked at me and laughed. She informed me that the people of my community would NEVER have approved the referendum if they thought that hot lunches would be provided.

Apparently the parents are so adamant about the federal food lunch policies that they won't allow them anywhere near our school district. Parents in my community would far rather provide their own lunches that they want than take any chance that the feds are going to dictate chicken nuggets, pizza, and french fries for protein, dairy and vegetables.

I was surprised by her comment. But even though, we'll soon have four lunches to make every day, i'm happy with that policy - our kids eat pretty healthy.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#62151 Feb 15, 2012
Great, I am paying for your flipping breakfast, and your proud of it. Worse your encouraging/teaching children how to abuse the system instead of teaching them to eat their food.

WOW!
cheluzal wrote:
I knew so many kids who would get their free breakfast ONLY to sit and talk with friends. They threw the entire thing away every day.
Disgusting.
I talked one into smuggling me one each day, ha! Hey, I need my morning nutrition, too.:)

“I looked, and behold,”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62152 Feb 15, 2012
Newt Romney wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. How *small* does government have to get to do all these *family values* things you people pay lip service to before you realize that is actually HUGE, totalitarian government?
It isn’t about small. It’s about accountability. I don’t have a problem with helping people or buying people’s kids lunches that can’t afford them. I DO care about buying your kid lunch, when you’re out buying cigarettes and alcohol for yourself. Really, don’t you see the problem with this? Does your heart bleed that f’ing much that you think that’s alright?

As far as I’m concerned if you are so poor that taxpayers need to pay for you, the government should have to right to restrict your actions if those actions are deemed to be contributing to the problem. I’d say if you don’t have enough money to buy your kid lunch, and are out buying smokes and alcohol, that your purchasing decisions are contributing to the problem. I’d be in favor of drug testing as well. Sorry, dude, when taxpayers are buying your kids sh1t, on planet Sublime, you don’t get to do drugs.

To me “family values” is a term coined by the idiots amongst conservatives, i.e. religious nuts. I’m not a religious nut. I think it’s up to each family to decide their own “values.”

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min OBAMANATION 1,535,811
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 240,942
News Chicago's population decline continues for the ... 3 hr Fitus T Bluster 1
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 hr SweLL GirL 10,708
Congressional FIX and REPAIR------NOW. 9 hr Panco and Cisco 3
Blank ATM card available for exchange (Oct '16) 20 hr linda randy 5
Trump Puddy Comment Worst Ever 22 hr Earl 3

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages