Schools dropping Michelle Obama's lunch prog

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

yea you really should unfollow. if you can not see that it is not about food itself, but another aspect of our lives that they want to control. as far as healthy goes. lmao.

You're the sort of person who'd happily let a child stick a fork into a powerpoint aren't you? Can't have people acting in other's best interest, that's tyranny.

The government controls the schools, yes? Then why shouldn't the government set the menus? If you don't like it BRING FOOD FROM HOME.

[aquatus1]

I have to respectfully disagree with that. Babies have to eat every 3 hours and children are constantly growing and need all the nourishment they can get.

Try to feed a baby pizza and get back to me. We are talking about high-schoolers here, ones that are not in any danger of a calorie deficit.

When they skip meals, they are are not any better off than before but will be hungrier and thus eat more in their next meal to make up for it if they can get away with it.

Ergo, if the problem of parents feeding their precious munchkins McDonalds as part of their diet, kids that are hungrier will be more motivated to eat the healthier food that parents and schools have also take the trouble to make tastier.

The key is to address and solve problems, not push them off somewhere else.

They have all their life later to fast and worry about weight but while they are growing, every kid should be given the necessary nutrients to avoid deficiencies and disorders.

Oh, no, no, no!

Make no mistake about, their eating habits as children are going to be a major influence on their eating habits as adults. Once you have packed on the pounds, your body will always be craving the calories, even if you manage to muster up the discipline to keep yoursef well-exercised and with a proper intake. Fat people don't stay fat just because they lack the mental discipline; the human body is evolutionarily designed to store fat, and doesn't like to lose ground.

If you wait for them to get out of high school, let alone college, you have already given them a severe disadvantage in keeping fit.

I remember growing up and our cafeteria served pizza, Salsbury steak, meatloaf, green beans, corn, milk and a cake or brownie, all of which we burned off in the playground and recess, there were hardly any overweight kids and maybe one or two obese at that time that I can remember. I do remember we had cafeteria ladies that would be like moms to us saying to eat all the food, don't waste any. Taking away Phys Ed and giving them laptops is proving to be more detrimental to the health of kids as there needs to be a healthy balance of exercising the mind and body...

Agreed. School should not be a separate aspect of life, temporary and to be reluctantly tolerated. It should foster the behaviours that a society wishes for their citizens to embrace.

This is all about more control over our everyday lives, not about fat kids that the tranny (allegedly) cares about. Until the sheep come to that realization, this kind of garbage will continue.

Well, at least someone agrees with me.

[aquatus1]

There's a big difference between "trying to get kids to eat better" and "making kids eat what you think is better".

And of the two, apparently the latter regarding yet another perceived government takeover takes priority over the actual, existing, flaws in the diets of the children.

[aztek]

? If you don't like it BRING FOOD FROM HOME.

funny, that you missed the part where they DO NOT LET YOU DO THAT, that is exactly what the topic is about, you can not bring it from home anymore,

[aquatus1]

You can bring food from home. They cannot stop you. They can tell you they can, but unless they are going to show that the child is in imminent danger from consuming the food, they cannot physically take the food away from the child, no matter how much they bluster about it.

I don't envy schools for the decisions they have to make. Teachers and administration are thrust into the unexpected role of caretaker, nanny, referee, sitcom parent (actually, never mind, that one isn't context-relevant anymore), and impossibly perfect human being, when all most expected was to actually, you know, teach. More often then not, they even get saddled with additional teaching responsibilities that they aren't actually trained for, and still expected to perform at a professional level, and still roundly criticized for any judgement call they make, regardless of whether it is correct or not. Why do we hear about schools making what we determine as asinine responses to otherwise utterly inane situations? For the exact same reasons everyone else commits the occasional asinine disproportionate responses. The only difference is that it is easier to politicize a mistake (or not a mistake) made by a school than one made by a parent.

When all is said and done, the lesson to learn here is simply this: Don't bow down to authority without adequate cause. Just because someone tells you you must do something this way doesn't mean you actually have to, even if others may shout that it means precisely that. Just because someone pretends to have authority, or doesn't correct the sheep when they assume that they have the authority, doesn't mean they actually do have the authority. Question. Confront. Correct. Leave the whining to the kennels. Schools have tried dozens of maneuvers to limit their liability and please the parents, everything from getting a child to sign a statement saying they hadn't actually been bullied, to getting rid of all the library books with the word "gay" in it (including a book describing the drop of the first atomic bomb in Japan). When these things happen, they must be corrected, and then life needs to move on. The school is no more interested in a protracted legal battle than anyone else.

[+DieChecker]

The thread was originally about how schools are dropping from Mrs Obama's program, and thus refusing the Fed money, because they are loosing money, wasting food, and kids just are not falling in line like they would in China or Cuba.

[aquatus1]

Blaming the kids?

[Beany]

This isn't about what kind of food is good for you or bad for you. This is about government intruding into another area where people should be free to choose. Michelle is not only taking choice away from the kids but is trying to do the job of every school dietician in the country. This overrides differences in regional cuisine. It's funny, but the same people that always cry about "diversity" seem determined to eliminate it in any area where they think they know better. Eating is one of the more personal things we do. Everyone likes something different, a little sweeter here, a little spicier there. Even the Three Bears liked their porridge cooked differently. We used to sneer at the Soviets for their attempts at central control but now we're doing the same thing. Their system failed. Ours is failing, the kids themselves are throwing away tons of mandated food. Is healthy food in the trash better for them than a pizza they actually eat?

Children don't have the information or maturity to make nutritional choice, that's the job of adults. An adult should be able to eat what they want, but kids? Mine would have grown to about 4' 3" if I had let them eat whatever they wanted. Monitoring our children's diets is a responsible thing to do until they learn enough self-control and have enough information to make their own choices. Kids do not have the same freedoms as adults, legally or otherwise.

[Beany]

This is all about more control over our everyday lives, not about fat kids that the tranny (allegedly) cares about. Until the sheep come to that realization, this kind of garbage will continue.

When I was in school the adults made decisions about what was served for school lunches; they've always had that control, this isn't anything new, you know. Children are almost constantly under the control of adults, one way or another. I wasn't real happy about having to eat unsweetened grapefruit sections or cole slaw that was often served, but that's what was put in front of me and that's what I ate. Back then we didn't get choices, no pizza, no hamburgers, no hot dogs, no French fries, no tacos, burritos, no chips. Grapefruit, cole slaw, stewed prunes, cowboy cornbread, campfire stew (Nally's, I believe). We ate what we were given, or secretly traded with a friend, or sat in the cafeteria during recess if we didn't clean our plates. Talk about control! And yet I don't think I was abused or manipulated or controlled because of it.

My 8-year old grandson takes a lunch if he doesn't like what's on the menu, any kid has that choice, so no one is forcing food on the kids that they don't want to eat or can't eat due to allergies or dietary restrictions. And because his mom has always monitored his diet, he almost always makes healthy choices, anyway. It seems that feeding our kids garbage is what's likely to continue.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Beany

[rashore]

Something I'm finding entertaining is the notion that the gov getting into school lunch programs is too interfering, involved or against freedom of choice. Well, school lunch programs have been under gov guidelines for a long time, this isn't anything new.

Personally I don't think just suddenly changing the menu is great on it's own. I think education about health, food, and nutrition should be part of it too. And all the way through school, not just a health class or two.

I think it's sad that Michelles pet project isn't doing well. It could be a great way to open up food dialogue and health education. But it does not seem to be going that way.

[Big Jim]

Children don't have the information or maturity to make nutritional choice, that's the job of adults. An adult should be able to eat what they want, but kids? Mine would have grown to about 4' 3" if I had let them eat whatever they wanted. Monitoring our children's diets is a responsible thing to do until they learn enough self-control and have enough information to make their own choices. Kids do not have the same freedoms as adults, legally or otherwise.

Right. But schools have traditionally been under local government control. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough but what I'm protesting is the concentration of control in Washington. A local school board and a dietician from the same area knows those kids better and possibly have some of their own in the schools they govern. What's good and normal for a fishing village in Maine is not the same as for a farming community in Iowa. Diets and traditions are different. I'm not saying let the kids eat candy for lunch, just that the adults making decisions should be local and elected. Michelle Obama is neither.

[Jeremiah65]

Big Jim hits a great topic all to it's own...federal education control...

I am totally against it...sorry if someone finds that upsetting...I do not care.

I am grateful that my kids are adults now...the education system today has been so dumbed down it's pathetic and it seems to go downhill at an ever increasing speed. "No child left behind" equates to "no child gets ahead" as well.

I am sick of everyone having to be "restrained" because of some poor parenting in the world...so the brain dead populace answer is...Nanny Government is going to step in everyone's business...bad parent or not.

Sickening...what's more sickening is the sheep that think the GOV stepping on EVERYONE is perfectly acceptable way of dealing with the few bad apples.

Here's a clue...IT IS NOT WELCOME OR ACCEPTABLE.

Bring education back to the state level where it was for generations...you know...back when we were statistically turning out the smartest people in the world...but now...we have to aspire to the lowest IQ in the classroom...on a national level no less.

Return control to the states...This will cover all of this nonsense and save people money as well. Remove the bureaucracy of the fed...tax money comes in and gets dispersed per capita...per state...period. We do not need bureaucrats taking 250k salaries out at the top level...to do nothing but make every student a little more stupid and ignorant...

oh well....

...they seem to want to make our kids stupid....look up "the intentional dumbing down of America" if you have doubts of their intent...stupid and uneducated people are far easier to control

Edited September 21, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[aquatus1]

Right. But schools have traditionally been under local government control.

Actually, depending on the country you live in, but definitely in the U.S., public schools have always been under the control of the locally elected Board of Directors, who answers to the district Superintendent of Schools. Your first brush with a non-state government agency isn't till the Department of Education.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough but what I'm protesting is the concentration of control in Washington.

You made that plenty clear. This is why you have been told that there are no federal (or, for that matter, state) regulations forbidding students from bringing their own lunches to school. There aren't that many federal regulations restricting much of anything in schools, heck, there aren't even that many state regulations that have to do with schools. Pretty much everything people are trying to blame on the federal government really comes down to decisions made by the local board, who pretty much reflect the local population.

A local school board and a dietician from the same area knows those kids better and possibly have some of their own in the schools they govern. What's good and normal for a fishing village in Maine is not the same as for a farming community in Iowa. Diets and traditions are different. I'm not saying let the kids eat candy for lunch, just that the adults making decisions should be local and elected. Michelle Obama is neither.

That's the traditional reasoning. That's the reasoning we have used up to now.

The problem, however, is the same issue that has plagued every single other decentralized system, from capitalism to government. People, left to their own devices, sooner or later segregate themselves into those who can't take responsibility for it, those who don't want to take responsibility for it, and those who want all the responsibility for it.

People are really not very good at dealing with unrestricted liberty. We are evolutionarily creatures of hierarchy; greed, dominance, and laziness, come naturally to us and are our natural fall-back position. Centralized power works not because tyranny, sheeple, whatever. It works because that is how humans are wired. If there is no alpha, people get complacent and lazy. If the alpha is not supervised, the alpha gets greedy and power-hungry. It's the circle of life *cue music*.

[aquatus1]

Big Jim hits a great topic all to it's own...federal education control...

Totally for it. The traditional system has shown itself to be a failure.

Sorry if someone finds that upsetting. I do not care.

**Not sure why that last sentence is necessary, but hey, creatures of dominance and all that. We are slaves to our genetics.**

I am sick of everyone having to be "restrained" because of some poor parenting in the world...so the brain dead populace answer is...Nanny Government is going to step in everyone's business...bad parent or not.

Yeah, that argument would have worked a lot better prior to the 35% obesity rate in the U.S.

When an issue affects the country on a national level, yes, the government has to step in. That it has to do so as a Nanny to children has more to do with how people are behaving than how the government is acting.

Sickening...what's more sickening is the sheep that think the GOV stepping on EVERYONE is perfectly acceptable way of dealing with the few bad apples.

No, the "sheep" think the government has a role to play, are aware of the role it currently plays, and advocate working hand in hand to find a solution.

The "non-sheep" are the ones who think the GOV is stepping on EVERYONE, and that trumps all other concerns, screw the kids.

Here's a clue...IT IS NOT WELCOME OR ACCEPTABLE.

To you.

Bring education back to the state level where it was for generations...you know...back when we were statistically turning out the smartest people in the world...but now...we have to aspire to the lowest IQ in the classroom...on a national level no less.

When did America hold this lofty distinction?

Return control to the states...

They have control. Haven't you heard? Their latest decision was to drop a school nutrition program sponsored by the President's wife. That will free up more money for the football team.

...they seem to want to make our kids stupid....

Yes. The purpose of sponsoring healthy diets and lifestyles is to encourage stupidity.

look up "the intentional dumbing down of America" if you have doubts of their intent...stupid and uneducated people are far easier to control

I would agree. I just don't see the need to go out of your way to create them.

Edited September 22, 2014 by aquatus1

[Beany]

Right. But schools have traditionally been under local government control. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough but what I'm protesting is the concentration of control in Washington. A local school board and a dietician from the same area knows those kids better and possibly have some of their own in the schools they govern. What's good and normal for a fishing village in Maine is not the same as for a farming community in Iowa. Diets and traditions are different. I'm not saying let the kids eat candy for lunch, just that the adults making decisions should be local and elected. Michelle Obama is neither.

I don't have the time, energy or inclination to argue about government control of school lunch programs or Michelle Obama's intentions or role in this. Maybe she should have stuck to flowers, like Lucy-bird, but I imagine even then more than a few someones would complain about that; I'm seeing this as mostly about the Obamas than school lunches and it's pretty picayune.

[aquatus1]

It's hard to see it any other way. Sarah Palin torpedoed herself by pretending this was a government issue herself. Even the Republican strategists were commenting that she so completely missed the point she got it 180 degrees backwards.

Not only is this not an indicator of a nanny state, it is the exact polar opposite.

[Jeremiah65]

Totally for it. The traditional system has shown itself to be a failure.

Sorry if someone finds that upsetting. I do not care.

**Not sure why that last sentence is necessary, but hey, creatures of dominance and all that. We are slaves to our genetics.**

Yeah, that argument would have worked a lot better prior to the 35% obesity rate in the U.S.

When an issue affects the country on a national level, yes, the government has to step in. That it has to do so as a Nanny to children has more to do with how people are behaving than how the government is acting.

No, the "sheep" think the government has a role to play, are aware of the role it currently plays, and advocate working hand in hand to find a solution.

The "non-sheep" are the ones who think the GOV is stepping on EVERYONE, and that trumps all other concerns, screw the kids.

To you.

When did America hold this lofty distinction?

They have control. Haven't you heard? Their latest decision was to drop a school nutrition program sponsored by the President's wife. That will free up more money for the football team.

Yes. The purpose of sponsoring healthy diets and lifestyles is to encourage stupidity.

I would agree. I just don't see the need to go out of your way to create them.

No...state ran education was far better before the fed got totally entrenched. I am not against federal involvement and funding but I am against their position of primary control.

35 % obesity rate could be more than just parents letting their kids eat junk food and sit on their asses..."wheat belly" may not be so rare after all

The only role the fed GOV is supposed to have is protecting our borders and maintaining an infrastructure to facilitate commerce and defense. Anyone that wants more than that needs to be more involved in your state or local GOV or shut up. Not everyone wants it so it needs to be state/local and not federal.

The gov steps on a lot more than just parents...and yes...this non-sheep managed to raise my kids just fine before Nanny Fed came to town.

Yes...TO ME...the Federal input and control is unwanted, unwarranted and unnecessary. Local, county and states managed it for generations. Get involved or go elsewhere where the herds don't give a brown about their freedom and rights...

Yes, I pulled that one out of my @ss. When the states ran the curriculum, we had more advanced students..."it seems"...our test score averages were better in comparison to the rest of the world...now we are not even in the top 5 in many subjects...pathetic.

Not everyone is worried about funding football teams. I remember when I was in school...sports, extracurricular activities, band...etc...was all "free"...we now pay more in taxes and get less for it...anyone want to explain that one to me?

Revisionist history and no student left behind is all the proof I need to come to the conclusion they want a generation of barely educated idiots incapable of critical thinking skills.

and yes...there is some kind of agenda at work...maybe you are afraid to look so I'll open the first file drawer for you...now it's up to you...

[media=]

[/media]

ETA:

Edited September 22, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[+DieChecker]

Blaming the kids?

I'm saying that kids, if allowed, to will choose not to eat vegetables (as an example), so putting "healthy", but bland vegetables and other foods on the lunch menu isn't going to get them to actually eat it. Taking those same vegetables and adding something "not so healthy" to them would get a lot more kids to eat them. But.... The food tyrants aren't willing to compromise that I have heard. Which results in schools dropping out of the program.

So, Yes, I do blame the kids, because what they eat and don't eat is what makes or breaks this program.

Edited September 22, 2014 by DieChecker

[Agent0range]

I'm saying that kids, if allowed, to will choose not to eat vegetables (as an example), so putting "healthy", but bland vegetables and other foods on the lunch menu isn't going to get them to actually eat it. Taking those same vegetables and adding something "not so healthy" to them would get a lot more kids to eat them. But.... The food tyrants aren't willing to compromise that I have heard. Which results in schools dropping out of the program.

So, Yes, I do blame the kids, because what they eat and don't eat is what makes or breaks this program.

America is not starving. 99% of the time...the kid not eating is better than eating bull****. I still can't believe some of the rationale displayed in this thread. "Who cares if the kid is overweight, they have their whole lives to lose it." Are you kidding me?!?!

[+DieChecker]

America is not starving. 99% of the time...the kid not eating is better than eating bull****. I still can't believe some of the rationale displayed in this thread. "Who cares if the kid is overweight, they have their whole lives to lose it." Are you kidding me?!?!

I would agree. Kids eat too much trash food.

I didn't see a discussion of Obesity in this thread to this point. Do you want to talk about it?

All the pediatricians that I have spoken to have said, "Get the kids to eat what they will eat". Meaning if the only meat a kid will eat is McDonalds chicken nuggets, that is better then having them eat no meat at all.

How many kids do you have Orange?

Edited September 22, 2014 by DieChecker

[Agent0range]

I would agree. Kids eat too much trash food.

I didn't see a discussion of Obesity in this thread to this point. Do you want to talk about it?

All the pediatricians that I have spoken to have said, "Get the kids to eat what they will eat". Meaning if the only meat a kid will eat is McDonalds chicken nuggets, that is better then having them eat no meat at all.

How many kids do you have Orange?

I have two kids..and like I said earlier in this thread...they were very picky eaters until they started going to school. My wife is a very good cook, and cooks very healthy. In school, they are hungry at lunch and more likely to try things. That has caused them to try much more things at home, and made them realize that "good" food is actually good. My wife has gone from cooking three different dinners to the whole family enjoying the same thing...thanks to school lunches. As far as I'm concerned, the proof is in the pudding (no pun intended).

[Michelle]

I have two kids..and like I said earlier in this thread...they were very picky eaters until they started going to school. My wife is a very good cook, and cooks very healthy. In school, they are hungry at lunch and more likely to try things. That has caused them to try much more things at home, and made them realize that "good" food is actually good. My wife has gone from cooking three different dinners to the whole family enjoying the same thing...thanks to school lunches. As far as I'm concerned, the proof is in the pudding (no pun intended).

I wonder if I'm the only one who sees the problem with that?

[Agent0range]

I wonder if I'm the only one who sees the problem with that?

And what problem exactly do you see with that? And after say something stupid, tell me how receptive your children are to baked fish, fresh asparagus and brussell sprouts, pumpkin turkey and white bean chili, and pasta with tofu. When my children were younger, she had the only protein they would eat was chicken breast. The only vegetable they would try was green beans. So you see something wrong with my wife making something for us, and giving my children other healthy foods that we knew they would eat? You are absolutely clueless.

[Michelle]

You are so right, AO...I have no right to speak.

[Odin11]

I wonder if I'm the only one who sees the problem with that?

See the problem with what? That his wife use to cook three diners or that she only has to cook one now because his kids have opened up to trying new foods?

Edited September 22, 2014 by Odin11