Students, staff celebrate after school drops Michelle O lunch rules

a reply to: crazyewok

Just new the left couldn't stand by while another one of Obummers legislations gets gutted. Thanks man for giving me a good chuckle. And thank you op sure our kids will appreciate this news. Now onto our schools literature, one baby step at a time.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: schuyler
Don't you understand that the GOVERNMENT knows what is good for you, good for your kids, and good for America? Not only that, if you do not agree, the GOVERNMENT gets to tell you what to do, what to eat, and how to live your life. The reason is that you are TOO STUPID to know any better so by telling you what to do the GOVERNMENT is doing you a favor. But, of course, you're too stupid to realize that so all you do is complain. So you must be conservative.

Bad examples. For years the school lunches were horribly unhealthy and low quality. Don't be ridiculous and pretend nutritionists trying to change that is some form of tyranny.

Proof's in the pudding. Kids won't eat the crap "nutritionists" say is healthy. They throw it away. The Nanny State telling you what to do IS THE DEFINITION OF TYRANNY. It;s not that nutritionists are "trying" to get people to eat what they think is right. They are FORCING people to eat what they think is right. Big difference and if you don't understand it you deserve to live in a state of tyranny yourself.

I think you are confusing young children for adults.. The law explicitly states that the teachers and schools are "in loco parentis," meaning in place of the parents, which is the exact legal framework which authorizes the educators to teach them, supervise them, and discipline them. Because the children are in their care, it is completely reasonable and legal for decisions such as healthy food versus non healthy food to be made for kids..

THEY ARE "NANNIES" as well as educators.

"First, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.[1]"

You can read the history of it more below.

en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, there is an immense body of literature regarding why children often aren't prepared cognitively and psychologically to make independent decisions regarding health, diet, schooling, sexual contact, and other life choices. This is precisely why they are not tried as adults, why they can't vote, and why they aren't allowed to drink for example.

a reply to: ketsukoSchool lunches have always been that way. Parents who cared always packed their kids a lunch.

It's a funny thing though, this obesity epidemic is a more recent phenomena. Maybe if the schools really cared, they'd go back to active, free play recesses and active gym classes for all?

And perhaps the overall culture needs to be changed instead of forcing diet rules on every kid that presupposes the kid is obese to start with and needs a drastic weight loss and aims for that amount of caloric intake.



Are you saying go back to no rules dodge ball. Let the blood and zit juice run.

a reply to: seasonal

Hooray!!! Now we can make more obese, diabetic kids and increase health care costs.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Are you under the impression that school lunches are mandatory?

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: ketsukoSchool lunches have always been that way. Parents who cared always packed their kids a lunch.

It's a funny thing though, this obesity epidemic is a more recent phenomena. Maybe if the schools really cared, they'd go back to active, free play recesses and active gym classes for all?

And perhaps the overall culture needs to be changed instead of forcing diet rules on every kid that presupposes the kid is obese to start with and needs a drastic weight loss and aims for that amount of caloric intake.



Are you saying go back to no rules dodge ball. Let the blood and zit juice run.

They don't have to be that way. Most developed countries have far healthier school lunches. And they do for a reason.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: UnBreakable

Are you under the impression that school lunches are mandatory?

For many low income kids they functionally are.

Kids aren't adults, if you didn't get the memo... See my response above about the legal framework for schools/educators having the authority to make decisions along these lines.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
Surprise surprise, kids celebrate when they can start munching doritos and drinking cola.

Let us not forget kids are stupid and it's our job as adults to raise them right, not indulge their every whim. What a win for conservatives!

Exactly. Yay for irresponsible parenting and legal guardianship (schools and teachers are "in loco parentis" when the kids are at school).

Somehow, this doesn't sound very traditional conservative to me...

a reply to: seasonal

Anyone with taste buds, a stomach and a lick of common sense are celebrating the end to her lunch program.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And I guess that is where the trouble starts.

This lunch program did not work.
The food sucked.
Kids would not eat it.
Why is that so hard for some to understand?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jellyrev

Veggies taste like crap except when lathered in fat, salt, butter and meat.

My kid eats a lot of raw, uncooked veggies.

No salt, butter, . . .

He's now 9.

ok

originally posted by: c2oden
This lunch program did not work.
The food sucked.
Kids would not eat it.
Why is that so hard for some to understand?

And WHY didn't it work?

Did it work in some areas, but not others?

When I was in high school in the 70's we could buy hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, hot weiners, meatball sandwhiches, grinders ... ahh good times. I was 6' tall ...110 pounds soaking wet and I could pound 6 hot weiners and 2 cokes with ease.

a reply to: Annee

It didn't work because the food sucked and kids wouldn't eat it.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Then move to those countries or pack lunches for your kids.

Do you understand that when a person eats unhealthy food as a matter of course their palate changes? You cannot have children eat crap for two meals out of the day at home and most of their lives and them force feed them healthy stuff at school for a limited time and, because the school has a limited budget, healthy food that tastes like crap because it's the cheapest possible, and expect them to like it or want it or eat it.

In fact, what you are doing is reinforcing their belief that all health food tastes bad, so that they will be even LESS likely to ever want to eat food that's good for them.

Heck my nephews' school district went on Michelle O. rules for a couple years, and my sister cooks all their food mostly from scratch, whole food because she understands that it's more cost effective unlike a lot of people. They get healthy, home-cooked, real food. Those three boys never met a raw veggie they wouldn't slam down or a salad they didn't like, and THEY hated Michelle O's lunch rules. They always came home starving and they said the food stank.

a reply to: Annee

pbs.twimg.com...

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: UnBreakable

Are you under the impression that school lunches are mandatory?

No, I know they're not mandatory, Skippy. I believe in personal responsibility, and parents should lead the way. But a lot of parents are 'friends' than 'parents' to their children, and give the kids more free reign than they should get. Leave it up to the kid and most times they'll pick the most fat laden or sugar laden food. That's all I'm saying.

a reply to: mikell

Pretty much.

It works at my son's school.