WTF?

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:38 pm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/educ ... 7867.story

Just read it.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:39 pm

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

Just read it.

To do this "to encourage healthful eating" is assinine. I can understand the argument regarding peanuts (specifically) and the potential harm to other children...that I can buy as a reason for banning peanuts. But this is just dumb. There has to be a point where parents are responsible for their childrens' health.

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:41 pm

What's wrong with enchiladas?

Army of GOD · Post by **Army of GOD** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:47 pm

Once school food is edible, they can start banning home-brought food.

Aradhus · Post by **Aradhus** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:53 pm

Timminz wrote:What's wrong with enchiladas?

Metal ones are easier to climb.

targetman377 · Post by **targetman377** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:13 pm

this article made me laugh so hard. Good thing the institution is protecting us from our evil free will!!!

Stegura · Post by **Stegura** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:20 pm

Just doesn't make sense to me. The parents should have at least some responsibility.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:31 pm

Gotta say- I have sympathy with what the school is trying to do- get kids to eat healthily and not have junk food. Having a standard, healthy, and yes- good quality, meal together really helps students. I've seen it when I worked as a teacher, there's evidence of it working in the UK, and I know at least one principal who uses it as an effective strategy to help improve behaviour at her school in the US.

pimpdave · Post by **pimpdave** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:35 pm

Childhood obesity is really becoming a serious problem in the US, guys. I don't think this is in any way worse than banning certain toys or jewelry from schools (remember those slap bracelets that kids kept accidentally slitting their wrists with?).

Army of GOD · Post by **Army of GOD** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:39 pm

Symmetry wrote:Gotta say- I have sympathy with what the school is trying to do- get kids to eat healthily and not have junk food. Having a standard, healthy, and yes- good quality, meal together really helps students. I've seen it when I worked as a teacher, there's evidence of it working in the UK, and I know at least one principal who uses it as an effective strategy to help improve behaviour at her school in the US.

Have you ever eaten lunch from a public school in the United States? You might as well just stop someone from flushing the toilet after a dump and eat straight from there.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:47 pm

Army of GOD wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Gotta say- I have sympathy with what the school is trying to do- get kids to eat healthily and not have junk food. Having a standard, healthy, and yes- good quality, meal together really helps students. I've seen it when I worked as a teacher, there's evidence of it working in the UK, and I know at least one principal who uses it as an effective strategy to help improve behaviour at her school in the US.

Have you ever eaten lunch from a public school in the United States? You might as well just stop someone from flushing the toilet after a dump and eat straight from there.

Yeah- I spent a year in 8th grade in the US. I learned about tater tots and sloppy joe's. English cuisine isn't exactly great, but the bog-standard diet in American schools is amazingly bad. It's been a big subject of debate over the last few years here, especially with Jamie Oliver's campaigns. Schools that banned junk food, and offered a healthy option have done better in tests.

But yeah- that's why I put in the "good quality" part. If the school is making an effort to provide genuinely healthy food, then I think it's a decent policy. Not the best- I think it's heavy handed, but I can see what they're trying to do. If they're just demanding that everyone eats the same slop, then it's a terrible idea.

john9blue · Post by **john9blue** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:09 pm

you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:12 pm

john9blue wrote:you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

Healthy eating?

john9blue · Post by **john9blue** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:16 pm

Symmetry wrote:
john9blue wrote:you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

Healthy eating?

naive optimism? faith in others? submission?

not healthy eating. the article had pictures, ya know

targetman377 · Post by **targetman377** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:17 pm

john9blue wrote:you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

who needs to think when the government does it for you? I mean right they are always right!!!

Aradhus · Post by **Aradhus** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:17 pm

john9blue wrote:you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

I'm pretty sure that topic already has somebody trying to equate stupid bullshit to liberalism. Oh I see, yeah, shoulda posted this in that thread to continue the idiotic premise.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:33 pm

john9blue wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
john9blue wrote:you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

Healthy eating?

naive optimism? faith in others? submission?

not healthy eating. the article had pictures, ya know

It does? I only saw the picture at the top.

The enchiladas don't look great, but I'm not sure they're unhealthy. The kid next to him looks to have a salad. The chocolate milk (I think) is pretty bad, but it doesn't belong to the kid posed by the photographer.

I can't seem to find the other pictures.

I like that you see faith in others as a liberal point of view though.

john9blue · Post by **john9blue** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:35 pm

Symmetry wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
john9blue wrote:you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

Healthy eating?

naive optimism? faith in others? submission?

not healthy eating. the article had pictures, ya know

It does? I only saw the picture at the top. The enchiladas don't look great, but I'm not sure they're unhealthy. The kid next to him looks to have a salad. The chocolate milk (I think) is pretty bad, but it doesn't belong to the kid posed by the photographer.

I can't seem to find the other pictures.

I like that you see faith in others as a liberal point of view though.

i sure do. i also don't think all of liberalism is bad. i can see why would assume that i did, though, since most people have a binary mentality about that kind of thing.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:47 pm

john9blue wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
john9blue wrote:you should have posted this in the "what does liberalism lead to" thread

Healthy eating?

naive optimism? faith in others? submission?

not healthy eating. the article had pictures, ya know

It does? I only saw the picture at the top. The enchiladas don't look great, but I'm not sure they're unhealthy. The kid next to him looks to have a salad. The chocolate milk (I think) is pretty bad, but it doesn't belong to the kid posed by the photographer.

I can't seem to find the other pictures.

I like that you see faith in others as a liberal point of view though.

i sure do. i also don't think all of liberalism is bad. i can see why would assume that i did, though, since most people have a binary mentality about that kind of thing.

I don't think that about you- I think you're pretty conservative, but open to other views. Apologies if that last line came off as criticism. I didn't intend it to come across in that way.

But yeah- I was nitpicking- are there other pictures?

I'm interested in knowing if the school is offering healthy food.

spurgistan · Post by **spurgistan** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:55 pm

That ain't right.

My school in Costa Rica wouldn't let parents give their kids sweets. That seems like a more appropriate policy. although it was a private school. this seems to be public? But yeah, the principal said she had an issue with parents packing soda or "flaming hot chips," why not just make that the rule? I'm assuming there's a reason why not, but still, it seems like there's a way to influence what the kids eat without going wholesale, baby with the bathwater.

notyou2 · Post by **notyou2** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:56 pm

The reason they are banning food from home is the company that runs the cafeteria wants a monopoly. They are paying the school administration or offering them other incentives to impose the ban. Then they charge $5.00 for a 50cent lunch that adds to the obesity issue.

Wake up people.

john9blue · Post by **john9blue** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:56 pm

dunno why i said "pictures" when there was only one picture. perhaps there was some journalistic bias involved, but i got the impression that the kids weren't too happy with their food.

whether the food is healthier than homemade food is up for debate. even if it was, that would be the only saving grace of this plan. and is it even worth it? i just don't think it's the school's job to tell kids what they have to eat. they are there to learn, and even eating junk food and feeling like crap is more educational than being spoon-fed the same meal as everyone else.

edit: notyou2 also has a point, the districts and catering service are forcing themselves to be the middleman and earn a greater profit by eliminating competition.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:16 pm

notyou2 wrote:The reason they are banning food from home is the company that runs the cafeteria wants a monopoly. They are paying the school administration or offering them other incentives to impose the ban. Then they charge $5.00 for a 50cent lunch that adds to the obesity issue.

Wake up people.

Is this the case with this school? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm not sure if you're talking about this case, or other schools.

notyou2 · Post by **notyou2** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:24 pm

I believe if it was Canada, what I stated would be the case and the school systems are predominately provincially run and for the most part fairly evenly supported financially. In America, I believe there are even stronger cases for school districts/boards/regions to make deals with advertisers, service providers, etc for additional revenue. I am not sure the additional revenue generated always finds it's way to where it was intended. I am not stating that from facts, but from what I believe to be human nature. The poorer schools may be underfunded and the well off schools over funded within a region due to the board being made up of the middle and upper classes.

Nobunaga · Post by **Nobunaga** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:27 pm

Symmetry wrote:
notyou2 wrote:The reason they are banning food from home is the company that runs the cafeteria wants a monopoly. They are paying the school administration or offering them other incentives to impose the ban. Then they charge $5.00 for a 50cent lunch that adds to the obesity issue.

Wake up people.

Is this the case with this school? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm not sure if you're talking about this case, or other schools.

... It is Chicago after all. Probably a cafeteria workers union involved here.

... (Not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not... it is possible in Chicago).

..

WTF?

WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?

Re: WTF?