Cinga Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Education for the parents is where government needs to focus its efforts IMO. I do not mean huge advertising campaigns, as the schools should direct them to websites that have appropriate education. Provide a free class (via the web) on what is appropriate in a child's diet and will help with their health, but also give tips on how to deal with fussy eaters (there are gov websites like that, but they have not been promoted properly IMO). WTF????? Didn't those same parents go through the same government schools??? And now your going to try to claim their not educated enough?? I despise this sort of circular reasoning...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I will not argue with that. How anyone could take themselves seriously as a lunch box inspector is beyond me. How does that work on a 1st date? "So, what do you do for a living?" "I inspect pre-schoolers lunch boxes." <crickets> "I also get to dust the chalk boards... " Never been around government workers, have you?
3rdnlng Posted February 16, 2012 Author Posted February 16, 2012 This gets post of the day, for being hilarious! Pretty damn good. And Booster (I can't believe I'm doing this) but
KD in CA Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 That, sadly, is entirely accurate and lacking in hyperbole. But the government has not just a right, but a responsibility under the Constitution to make sure that kids eat healthy lunches. It falls under "regulating interstate commerce," since it's a health care issue. Oh, well, now we're talking civil rights! Let the lawsuits against the parents commence! But I absolutely do agree with the idea of restricting what kind of foods can be bought with Government welfare money. I also am for promoting healthy eating in schools and only providing healthy foods, and cut down significantly the fat and sugars. Big difference between dictating what gets served at school and dictating what kids can pack in their lunchbox. The question is if "sin" taxes work. I don't smoke but the NYS sales tax on cigarettes is pretty high. What happens to the state coffers if the "sin" tax gets a lot of people to quit smoking? They go to the government for more $. Here in CA we have the Meathead Tax on cigs. It was pushed by Rob Reiner to advertise to stop teens from starting smoking. When less people were smoking, they came begging to the State Legislature for more moolah. Exactly, or to put it more succinctly, government just invents more sins.
Adam Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 If there was a sin tax, would they have been able to charge this poor girl more, after giving her the chicken nuggets?
birdog1960 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 don't know what happened to buftex post with examples of unecessary govt interference from the other side but they're easy to find. many wrongs don't make a right. lunchbox inspection is just stupid but the effort to provide better cafeteria food seems to me a no brainer.
Joe Miner Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 don't know what happened to buftex post with examples of unecessary govt interference from the other side but they're easy to find. many wrongs don't make a right. lunchbox inspection is just stupid but the effort to provide better cafeteria food seems to me a no brainer. Good luck finding a school that's able to change their hot lunch provider to someone who provides healthy hot lunches.
Magox Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Good luck finding a school that's able to change their hot lunch provider to someone who provides healthy hot lunches. Doesn't sound like it should be that difficult.
LeviF Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Doesn't sound like it should be that difficult. Some schools have done it already, I think.
Joe Miner Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Doesn't sound like it should be that difficult. Look into it. I'm not saying the lunch provider can't change its food options. I'm saying that it's difficult to bring in a new lunch provider to a school.
Magox Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Look into it. I'm not saying the lunch provider can't change its food options. I'm saying that it's difficult to bring in a new lunch provider to a school. I reall don't know anything about this and I'm sure their are some bureaucratic obstacles to go through, but it really doesn't seem like something to difficult to overcome, if there is a strong will behind it.
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I reall don't know anything about this and I'm sure their are some bureaucratic obstacles to go through, but it really doesn't seem like something to difficult to overcome, if there is a strong will behind it. I can't imagine it's anything other than difficult, given that the teachers' unions would be in some way involved.
Wacka Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 It also depends how big the bribes or kickbacks are to the school board.
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 It also depends how big the bribes or kickbacks are to the school board. Contracts.
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 They are at it again. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/
Nanker Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 When I was in High School, the white haired ladies in the kitchen made mashed potatoes and gravy for EVERY lunch. If you bought your lunch ($0.35) even if spaghetti was the main dish - mashed potatoes and gravy were the side. Sounds like chicken nuggets are the new mashed potatoes and gravy. BTW, I wish I could get my hands on their sweet roll recipe. Good lord, those were great. $0.05 each. Some kids spent their lunch money on 3-4 sweet rolls and a carton or two of milk.
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 Pathetic bill to ban food trucks within 1500 feet of a school. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Food-Truck-Schools-Ban-Bill-California--139546878.html
DC Tom Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 Pathetic bill to ban food trucks within 1500 feet of a school. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Food-Truck-Schools-Ban-Bill-California--139546878.html Under that bill, you can carry a gun 500 feet closer to a school than you can drive a food truck.
3rdnlng Posted February 18, 2012 Author Posted February 18, 2012 Under that bill, you can carry a gun 500 feet closer to a school than you can drive a food truck. Well, that's just in case you need to shoot your appetizer on the way to the garbage truck.
Recommended Posts