rashore Posted October 31, 2014 #201 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I kind of wonder how many people hold Nancy Regan accountable or responsible for all the kids that are on drugs? After all, she put her name on, and spearheaded the Just Say No campaign, and there are a lot of kids on drugs- and there were a lot of kids on drugs when she was actively on her pet project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 31, 2014 #202 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) I kind of wonder how many people hold Nancy Regan accountable or responsible for all the kids that are on drugs? After all, she put her name on, and spearheaded the Just Say No campaign, and there are a lot of kids on drugs- and there were a lot of kids on drugs when she was actively on her pet project. how is she responcible for those that did not say no to drugs??? she was not iirc shoving anything down everyone's throat, did she? what did her program do exactly? Edited October 31, 2014 by aztek 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jim Posted October 31, 2014 #203 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Would it be reasonable to assume that if Michael Jordan took credit for the Nike being a superior sneaker, it would actually be him who designed and engineered it? If he took credit for it, would you believe him? Notice how it has pretty much nothing to do with the actual success of the sneaker? Which is why no one ever bothered with it? It wasn't the performance that people were focused on. They just wanted to know if their hero knew about the bad things that other people did in his name, and once he told them he had no idea, they happily moved on. Not too different, I think. Perhaps simply the opposite side of the same coin. Kids don't like the food? They're throwing the food away? Can't be the kids fault. Can't be the parents fault. Can't be the schools fault. Must be Michelle's fault. Let's just go ahead and assume she would take the credit for it and treat her like we would have treated Michael if he had admitted to knowing. That's how we would have treated him, right? We don't tolerate our celebrities acting immorally, here in the U.S. It can be sugar-coated as much as one likes, but when all is said and done, even if the program is a financial failure (although, why is it that only the same schools keep getting mentioned over and over again?), even if it was badly written (despite all the inclusions that have already been pointed out that directly address the points people are complaining about), ultimately, not a single person here has bothered up until now (at least Diechcker is trying) to make a logical connection between Michelle and anything that occurred. As far as the majority here are concerned, It has the Obama name on it, something's wrong, not sure what, not sure why, so heck, let's go ahead and blame everything where not sure about on her. I know nothing about Michael Jordan or his sneakers. But the only way to make a valid comparison between his paid endorsement and Michelle's voluntary championing of the school lunch program would be if he had the power to make his preferred shoes the only shoes available. You either buy his shoes, in the size he dictates, or you go barefoot. That is the choice(?) being given to kids in school. Another way to make it a valid comparison would be to continue to serve the standard school menu alongside Michelle's suggestions and see which one the kids prefer, just as there are many brands of shoes on the rack next to the ones MJ endorses. As for people being prejudiced about anything with the Obama name on it, that's not true. It is they who choose what they promote or endorse, not us. The complaints against the school lunch program's inadequacies began with the kids who it is being served to. As non-voters, that demographic would have to be considered the most apolitical group in the country. Many probably couldn't name the First Lady on a test. The rest of us are only discussing it because they made it an issue. Being an adult myself, with no kids in school, I would be blissfully unaware of school menus or Michelle's involvement if the kids were happy with their situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted October 31, 2014 #204 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Getting the First Lady wrapped up in school lunches is good politics. When we inflate so much meaning and outrage and emotion into such a non-story as this, I think that's a sure sign that politics is way too important in our lives. It's good politics, folks. It makes the dumbed down democrat masses believe that the Obamas care about all the little children of the world (except for the children politically correct not to care about). Good politics, like landmines, and the vegetable Ketchup, if anyone catches my drift. Bemoaning the end of a program Michelle Obama was associated with is just more nonsense, almost as stupid as predicting the end of Obamacare or languishing under that fake Hawaiian birth certificate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 31, 2014 Author #205 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Would it be reasonable to assume that if the program was a success that she would gladly take the credit? If so, then the blame must rest with her also. Yes. I agree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 31, 2014 Author #206 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Like Michael Jordan opened himself up for blame for Nike's child labor thing? I'd say YES. He obviously has an endorsement contract, and probably shares, or a percentage. He's as culpable as the CEO and the marketing people. Beyond asking him if he knew about it, how harshly was he treated compared to Michelle? You think she is being treated more unfairly then any other celebrity who endorses a project? I don't think so. Other then that she is involved with a political project and we are in a politically active period. If Michael Jordan was championing the Kids Act, I'd expect he'd get the same about of heat for it failing. And as was said shortly thereafter, that makes it a funding issue, not a nutritional issue.You can't reduce a 30% obesity rate by feeding kids what kids want to eat. I'd agree, but you can't fix the obesity issue without first fixing the funding issue. Public schools can't afford to go over budget, that is a reality. And like a I posted before, most schools are funded locally off bond measures. If the bond measures fail, the school has to cut back. Which is why financial aid was offered to schools implementing the guidelines. Sadly the aid appears to have been insufficient. It also reflects on the people blaming her directly for it. In these days of political partisanship, it will go completely and totally unnoticed. Doesn't make it right, but does make it "normal". And I would think.... Expected. Agreed. A better way would be to train the kids to eat healthier. But that would require people to not do the things that have turned us into a nation of fat-asses. It would require work at home above all, and with America over the last several generations being taught to be a "Me, me, me...." society I can see why that didn't happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted October 31, 2014 #207 Share Posted October 31, 2014 how is she responcible for those that did not say no to drugs??? she was not iirc shoving anything down everyone's throat, did she? what did her program do exactly? She's not any more or less responsible for kids that don't say no to drugs than Michelle Obama is responsible to kids saying yes or no to school lunch. But some people act as if Michelle is responsible because she is championing the cause. So it makes me wonder if some people hold Nancy responsible for her cause the way some people are holding Michelle responsible. Big Jim made the question of if the school lunch program was a success, would Michelle take credit? And if it failed then the blame must rest with her also- and I noticed there has been some agreement with this. Then to be fair, the just say no campaign if it was a success would be to Nancy's credit, and since it seems to have not been a success the blame would be on her too- but that's not very fair is it? Then neither is holding Michelle to blame if her cause fails. And I'm not sure about shoving down throats, but Nancy's cause did get worked into every school, had a lot of advertising was all over various forms of media. She even invited in first ladies from dozens of other countries to help out, addressed the UN, and got a few major groups in the US involved. What Nancy's program did was spend billions (and still spending billions annually) of dollars in advertising an drug prevention programs- and raised awareness of a serious problem with our youth in drug use, an ongoing problem today. What the program that Michelle is championing is doing is spending (so far) way less billions, in the hopes of raising awareness of childhood obesity, and I'm willing to bet it will still be a problem years from now. Both Nancy and Michelle decided to champion causes that strike at the heart of our youth. But Nancy does not seem to have been held as accountable. Nor has been Barbara Bush with her championing literacy- and there are still many illiterate children, or Laura Bush and her championing education- and plenty of people gripe about education yet leave her out of it, or Lady Bird Johnson with her cause of beautification of America when people still litter and tear up public places of beauty. It just makes me sad and mad that Michelle is getting nailed because her cause isn't going great, when there have been other first ladies that had causes that haven't gone off so great either and they don't even get commented on, or if they do usually get defended. All these women do their damnedest to bring attention to serious problems- and it's none of their faults if those problems are not fixed. All they can do is champion the cause, try to bring awareness to it, and hope that it's beneficial. It also frustrates me that some people choose to act as if Michelle is the direct overseer of the school lunch program, and she is not. They act like Michelle is planning out meals or doling out money, and she is not. Even when given information about the policy itself (thanks aquatus), some folks still seem to insist this is all in the hands of Michelle personally- and it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 31, 2014 #208 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) She's not any more or less responsible for kids that don't say no to drugs than Michelle Obama is responsible to kids saying yes or no to school lunch. But some people act as if Michelle is responsible because she is championing the cause. no one asked kids or their parents to say anything, they were told what will happen, no choice. apples and oranges,. absolutely different programs, nothing in common except for gender of the promoter. yes she's absolutely responsible, for that exact reason, she is championing\promoting the cause. she forces something onto parents and kids, against their will, show me where Nancy did that. if MO was only rising awareness it would be one thing, but she imposes her "vision" on others. if you want something valid to compare, it would be Bloomberg's soda size program, or was he not responsible for that either?? thanks god judge stepped in, and it never materialized Edited October 31, 2014 by aztek 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jim Posted October 31, 2014 #209 Share Posted October 31, 2014 She's not any more or less responsible for kids that don't say no to drugs than Michelle Obama is responsible to kids saying yes or no to school lunch. But some people act as if Michelle is responsible because she is championing the cause. So it makes me wonder if some people hold Nancy responsible for her cause the way some people are holding Michelle responsible. Big Jim made the question of if the school lunch program was a success, would Michelle take credit? And if it failed then the blame must rest with her also- and I noticed there has been some agreement with this. Then to be fair, the just say no campaign if it was a success would be to Nancy's credit, and since it seems to have not been a success the blame would be on her too- but that's not very fair is it? Then neither is holding Michelle to blame if her cause fails. And I'm not sure about shoving down throats, but Nancy's cause did get worked into every school, had a lot of advertising was all over various forms of media. She even invited in first ladies from dozens of other countries to help out, addressed the UN, and got a few major groups in the US involved. What Nancy's program did was spend billions (and still spending billions annually) of dollars in advertising an drug prevention programs- and raised awareness of a serious problem with our youth in drug use, an ongoing problem today. What the program that Michelle is championing is doing is spending (so far) way less billions, in the hopes of raising awareness of childhood obesity, and I'm willing to bet it will still be a problem years from now. Both Nancy and Michelle decided to champion causes that strike at the heart of our youth. But Nancy does not seem to have been held as accountable. Nor has been Barbara Bush with her championing literacy- and there are still many illiterate children, or Laura Bush and her championing education- and plenty of people gripe about education yet leave her out of it, or Lady Bird Johnson with her cause of beautification of America when people still litter and tear up public places of beauty. It just makes me sad and mad that Michelle is getting nailed because her cause isn't going great, when there have been other first ladies that had causes that haven't gone off so great either and they don't even get commented on, or if they do usually get defended. All these women do their damnedest to bring attention to serious problems- and it's none of their faults if those problems are not fixed. All they can do is champion the cause, try to bring awareness to it, and hope that it's beneficial. It also frustrates me that some people choose to act as if Michelle is the direct overseer of the school lunch program, and she is not. They act like Michelle is planning out meals or doling out money, and she is not. Even when given information about the policy itself (thanks aquatus), some folks still seem to insist this is all in the hands of Michelle personally- and it's not. You make some good points, but I think the difference between Michelle's cause and those of other First Ladies is the perception of force or coercion. Whether she is micro-managing the school lunch program or not, she chose to associate herself with it. She makes commercials to promote it. But in an age where government seems to be intruding into more areas of our lives than ever before people are hyper sensitive to any new intrusion. When the other First Ladies backed causes, as all modern First Ladies do, participation was optional. No one made kids stay after school until they "just said no". No one forced them to read a book just because the Bush's wanted them to. Lady Bird was against litter but there were no road crews of kids forced to pick it up. There are few things we do in public that are more personal than eating. Not only are our tastes all different but so are our needs and capacities. So between the personal nature of what is trying to be regulated and the captive nature of the intended recipients it seems clear to me and apparently many others why people are more upset over this than someone merely suggesting that they read a book. As I alluded to in an earlier post, it might not get folks so irritated if the standard school menu was still available and the one Michelle backs was offered as an alternative. That would make it seem more like a suggestion and less like a government mandate. I don't think anyone is against Michelle or her good intentions but they take offense at the heavy handed way the program is being implemented. We can argue all day about the minutiae of who designed and enacted the program into law but that doesn't change the fact that Michelle put her brand on it and has thereby become a shorthand way of referring to the whole program. It's no different than saying a particular car is not American made because it has imported parts. We still refer to it by the name on the bumper, regardless of who put it together. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted November 2, 2014 Author #210 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Both Nancy and Michelle decided to champion causes that strike at the heart of our youth. But Nancy does not seem to have been held as accountable. Nor has been Barbara Bush with her championing literacy- and there are still many illiterate children, or Laura Bush and her championing education- and plenty of people gripe about education yet leave her out of it, or Lady Bird Johnson with her cause of beautification of America when people still litter and tear up public places of beauty. I think at the time, these First Ladies all had a rough time when their programs began failing. I suspect that in 10 to 20 years, few, if anyone will remember Michele Obama being treated harshly. The colored lenses of Time tend to prevent us from remembering what happened so long ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted November 3, 2014 #211 Share Posted November 3, 2014 SCHOFIELD, Wis. – Meghan Hellrood is determined to make her point about the new skimpy lunches in her school. The D.C. Everest High School senior is organizing a boycott of the new “healthy” lunches required by federal regulations that were championed by First Lady Michelle Obama. After posters announcing the boycott were taken down, she was undeterred. She turned to word-of-mouth and social media, including a Facebook page titled, “Boycott School Lunch – Take a Bag DCE.” Hellrood says the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act is neither healthy or hunger free, according to WSAU. “They have to pack more food themselves to go along with the school food. So, they’re getting two meals. One is from school but they’re bringing the other one,” she says, explaining the school food is now lower quality and students are getting less of it. Even condiments aren’t escaping the regulations. “Now, we’re even getting restricted with our mayo packets and barbeque sauce packets, that we can’t even take two packages of mayo because that’s too many calories, so I’m handing out mayo,” Hellrood tells the radio station. She even posted a photo of her stash on Facebook, promising “unlimited mayo.” http://eagnews.org/student-mounts-campaign-to-repeal-michelle-os-lunch-rules/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted November 11, 2014 #212 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Student photos of skimpy Michelle O lunches raise ire of parents HASKELL, Okla. – A chicken patty, small scoop of mashed potatoes and carton of milk aren’t enough to sustain a high school boy. But under the school lunch regulations championed by First Lady Michelle Obama, that’s what Haskell High School served recently. Haskell High School senior Darrel Bunch took a photo of one of his recent skimpy school lunches and sent it to Fox 23. “It’s mostly the portions,” Bunch says. “Last year we started getting less food.” “Last year, my boys started calling me, ‘Can you please bring me something to eat?’ ‘We’re still hungry,’ or, ‘This is gross,” the student’s mother, Cheryl Bunch tells the news station. http://eagnews.org/s...-among-parents/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted November 11, 2014 #213 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Where's the bun!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted November 12, 2014 Author #214 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Probably the breading counts as the Grains portion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted November 12, 2014 #215 Share Posted November 12, 2014 You're probably right. That's horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama13 Posted November 12, 2014 #216 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Forget about the bun, where is the gravy!! Mashed potatoes without gravy should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyDolly Posted November 12, 2014 #217 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Here's a sample of the lunch menu for the high schools in my town straight from the menu. Wednesday Nove.12 BBQ Chicken on a bun Thursday Nov.13 Turkey and dressing or pizza or chicken nuggets leafy green salad mashed potatoes with gravy Ranch beans green beans fruit cocktail cinnamon apples and icecream They are doing the Thanksgiving lunch for the kids this week. Ours here in the purchasing office is next week. I asked the lady who does our menus Debbie why they had the seperate menu for junior high and then for the pre-k to grand 6. I asked since I print the darn things every month for them. I was told it was because according to the Federal guidlines each age group is supposed to get so many calories a day in their lunch. That's what they are required to serve per Federal government aka Michelle Obama. Every school district in the State of Texas here big or small posts on their website the school menu.I have even seen the Archdiocese of San Antonio catholic schools post their lunch menus. Here in my district S.C.UC.ISd attaches to each menu a flyer Nutrition Nuggets.It has tips about nutrition and exercise and is stapled to the menus . Don't know if any of the other districts here around the San Antonio area do thisbut we do. Of course,,as adults when we do ours next week we don't pay any attention to Michelle and her calorie count. Now looking at that photo of the school lunch above,it is not adhiering to good nutriion whether mandated by the federal government or not. There is no veggies,except the potatoes. They could give the kids mixed veggies, or squash,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,green beans and maybe a small salad with an apple peach or pear for dessert. If that's what they are giving the students,then it has nothing to do with Michelle Obama,,but the fact they are being a bunch of cheapskates period.The Food Service Department is being lazy period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyDolly Posted November 12, 2014 #218 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I do applaud her for her interest in better nutrition for kids. It's not good for kids to eat a bunch of processed foods ever day. They need more fresh fruits and veggies.But a lot of these school districts go to the processed stuff cause i assume they think it's cheaper in the long for them.I can remember as a kid JFK an dthe President's Council on psyhical Fitness aimed at kids. Didn't hurt us one bit to go out and play. Only time will tell if this whole thing made any changes to the obesity rate in kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted November 12, 2014 #219 Share Posted November 12, 2014 . It's not good for kids to eat a bunch of processed foods ever day. can't argue with that, however nothing changed in that regard, kids still get processed food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted November 12, 2014 #220 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I remember we made these things called sandwiches, we put them into this thing called a brown bag and took them to school with us. And during this period called Lunch, we would take the sandwiches out of the bag and eat them. The really strange thing is, you could even put unprocessed foods into the bag, and save $1.00 by not having to buy the meal the school provided. It was quite amazing that people applied their freedom of choice and avoided the processes that scared them. Apparently these days, we just sit on our rear ends and complain about the school cafeteria food and weave a bunch of warm fuzzy partisan political spin out of it. Well how convenient; our kids are getting healthier already. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted November 22, 2014 #221 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Students Are Tweeting Thanks to Michelle Obama With Pics Of Gross Cafeteria Food -- See the Meals! https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/students-tweeting-thanks-michelle-obama-pics-gross-cafeteria-224500185-us-weekly.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted November 24, 2014 #222 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I bet her kids don't eat that crap in there school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted November 27, 2014 #223 Share Posted November 27, 2014 When I was in high school a group of us knew the secret to showing up early and talking with the lunch ladies and they would make a specialized salad complete with chicken other meats and eggs. We ate like champs. They knew who we were and as we walked through they would reach under the counter and give is our specialized highly nutritious meal rather than the other junk. It was awesome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted November 27, 2014 #224 Share Posted November 27, 2014 And what were you telling the lunch ladies to risk doing that for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted November 28, 2014 Author #225 Share Posted November 28, 2014 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now