Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you REALLY--REALLY--believe that because a school lunch some parent packed doesn't check all the boxes on some (ever-changing) ideal standard that the kid is being abused? If you believe a kid is being ABUSED, then TAKE THE FUCKING KID AWAY. And let me put it to you this way: if you REALLY think this is so goddamned important, how about you let school officials come to your home DURING THE SUMMER to approve of what you're feeding your kids? After all, if you can't be trusted to pack your kid's lunch during the school year, how can you be trusted to prepare his/her lunch when school's not in session?
Exactly. But then you get into that gray area of "kid comes to school with Coke and Snickers for lunch every day." And your answer is "not the school's problem." Except it is.
Granted. THAT KID is a problem. When THAT KID becomes a problem, the school takes action with THAT KID'S parents. The vast majority of kids AREN'T that kid and their parents are providing adequate (if not IDEAL) nutrition for them. The school shouldn't be sticking its nose into those parents' business without justification.
I'm not sure Paladin has read any of the posts in this thread, since he seems to think people are supporting the Ritz cracker policy. Here's a clue, nobody has said anything of the sort. Seriously, @Paladin, go back and read the posts, you are arguing a point on which Wordforge universally agrees. Some of us have raised some other issues where a more valid case for intervention might exist. That's not the same thing as what you seem to think it is. My guess, you are simply assuming people have said things according to your pre-conceived understanding of our politics. Alternatively, perhaps you really see no difference between force feeding a kid Ritz for grain (-1) and food assistance for a chronically mal-nourished child.
I have. You say "no one supports this" but then appear to support it a few posts later: Your main objection seems not to be the nanny state intrusion, but the fact that the WRONG food was substituted. And I've said IF a kid is malnourished or has behavioral problems, THEN the school is justified in intervening. Lunch inspections to stamp out instances of -1 VEG or -1 GRAIN are not, not just because it interferes with the parents rights, but also because the school has ZERO knowledge of what the student is getting at breakfast and dinner. You're the one who's not reading. I've repeatedly stated that those are CLEARLY not the same thing, and that, while MALNUTRITION justifies some intervention, -1 GRAIN does not.
Ever notice how people with kids think people without kids should have any opinions on child raising?
As opposed to you thinking it's OK for the government to pay for someones healthcare because they can't. Guess that makes you a supporter of socialized medicine.
So instead of having a set policy for lunches, the school's administrators need to legislate one kid at a time. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is that a specific branded product was forced on the parents.
I don't think it's okay and have never thought it is okay and I have always believed that if you don't have insurance or money you get no care.
And I'm OK with that, but our society isn't. So someone who can't pay is still going to get care and we are footing the bill one way or another.
Uh, yeah. The state has to have a REASON to intervene. The state exists to serve the people, not the other way around. And, as a practical matter, it requires far fewer resources to identify problem children and take action with their parents, then to closely monitor every child on a daily basis and to constantly be taking action for slight divergences from the ideal. Oh, YES that is the issue. I don't care if the school can make PERFECT nutritional choices for each kid (they can't, so let's not live with that illusion), it still doesn't justify them overriding parents' decisions. If the school is that concerned about kids receiving ideal nutrition, they can send home a letter to parents outlining what ideal would be. Then it's ENTIRELY up to the parents about how (or whether) to conform to those suggestions. Your "Coke and a Snickers bar" scenario justifies intervention by the school when (1) it becomes APPARENT that the child is under-nourished or (2) the child's behavior becomes unmanageable.
I know it seems complicated, but it's possible to criticize the policy on two fronts: 1) an unnecessary intrusion on parenting; 2) mistake is compounded by an ineffectual effort to provide the perceived missing nutrition. Everybody else seems to understand this. Don't assume words that haven't been written, because nowhere did I say I'd approve of the policy if it at least offered good nutrition. I hope that clears things up for you. And yet, nowhere did I say that. So if you've read the words, you've still added additional thoughts that aren't there. And twice I've said that I agreed with you... Indeed you have, which is why I find the rest of your statements, hammering away at the Ritz incident to be out of place, because we all clearly share that point of view.
Absurd. The state doesn't own you, and you don't require permission from it to go about normal human activity. The evil such a system would bring more than offsets any good it would do. Ditto.
Yes, the school is the state. Is it not funded by public monies? Is it not staffed with public employees? Are there not laws requiring attendance? If it isn't the state, then it would have to be operated according to mutual individual consent. And that isn't the case, now, is it?
Having raised two kids - one of whom would have lived on mac 'n' cheese and chocolate chip cookies if left unsupervised - I'm aware that kids need guidance in food choices along with many other things. There's the concept of in loco parentis, which means the cafeteria monitor should make sure your kid isn't swapping her nutritious lunch for Twinkies every day. So in my view there needs to be a set of parameters for what children eat while they are in school. My objection in this individual case, as someone mentioned upthread, is the blatant peddling of a branded product, period, full stop.
There's nothing wrong with the product being branded per se. The problem, on top of the fact that the original lunch was just fine by any reasonable measure, is that the product the school forced on the children was unhealthy garbage that cost the school far less than the $5 it charged per serving. A private entity doing that would be guilty of racketeering.
Of course. And that's the job of the PARENTS. If the "cafeteria monitor" happens to notice this, fine. But the job ends at informing the parent. It isn't the job of the school to enforce some standard on parents. If the school wants to work WITH THE PARENTS CONSENT to make sure some nutritional goal is met, that's fine. I object to that, too. The difference seems to be that you seem to object to it based on what the product was, whereas I object to the idea that the school was empowered to force ANY foodstuff on the child/parent.
yeah who cares if people are having kids they can in no way support or if the parents are hardcore drug users...amirite? And yeah....people should vote without knowing anything at all about either candidate. You know...I bet this would hurt republicans more than democrats, they are more likely to be single issue voters on issues that aren't going to change anyway. You can say how absurd it is all you want, but it would fix a lot of problems.
While I agree those are undesirable situations, I don't accept the solution is to make EVERY person ask the state "Mother may I" if they want to have children. Who's to say that the single issue voter is wrong? And, again, your suggestion punishes all persons by making them get approval for something they have right to do. And create some potentially very large ones.
The theory of requiring an educated voter or a competent parent is a nice one, but utterly impractical.
You don't want people "relying on the state" but require the state to intervene on a consistent basis in the lives of every family in the country as well as come up with some absurd test that serves as an indicator to whether or not you can have children. This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read and gives us all great insight as to why you're old and alone.
Quite a few years ago a guy in my unit got in hot water because his son was hungry at school. He complained "there's nothing to eat in my house." OMG! SOUND THE ALARMS! Turns out the guy had gone shopping just a couple of days before. You know how picky kids are - if it isn't their favorite food, there's "nothing to eat." Of course this being an Army post the guy had to prove his innocence to his commander/school counselor/etc.
Hmm... what happens if the kid's family are vegetarians? Not hippie vegetarians, who have no right to lifestyle choices, but like Hindus or something where it's truly cultural?
I can see that happening. "I only eat chocolate coco puffs and dad didn't buy any so there is nothing to eat in our house." Yeah, except all that healthy non-processed stuff sitting in the pantry.
