Lunch Nazis to be fired

[Darkwind]

Betsy DeVos knows that. So does trump.

According to the right its, Let them eat cake. Better yet, starve.

No, I don't think they're doing this intentionally. They have no clue how most Americans live, and especially not people living on the margins of survival. Neither do a lot of the posters here, apparently, who think it's a dandy idea.
I've told this story before, so excuse me if you've heard it, but my mom's first teaching job was in a one room schoolhouse in a very small rural community during WWII. One family sent their kids to school with no lunch, or on a lucky day, half a raw potato. Mom would pack extra sandwiches and say "Oh, look, they packed me way too much again. Can anyone help me finish all this?" She was the federal school lunch program. Not every teacher would do that, I'm guessing, across the country in this day and age. So kids who come to school with empty stomachs would stay that way all day.

Yes, we know. It is a tale of woe.

People who lack all sense of responsibility are having children they cannot care for. It seems that we cannot punish them for their reckless behavior, so you have to punish those of us who are not as reckless to pay for their children's hunger.

As I said. Emotional blackmail.

Well, at least you realize what I am describing is a painful scenario. It seems clear the alternative is to let the kids starve. We can do that--they are doing it in Somalia, why can't we?
I know we've got some welfare bums and a lot of drug addicts (at least here we do) on SNAP that are doing their damndest to use their welfare funds on other things, but should kids, helpless to choose who their parents are, be the ones to grow up malnourished, with stunted learning capacity? It's not an easy thing to fix, but simply cutting off the funds and letting people starve is too much. This is America, not Venezuela or Somalia.

Really? The ONLY alternative you can think of is to let them starve?

Let Me know if you ever wish to have a real conversation about what we should do with children that society has to raise because the parents are worthless human beings.

I'm perfectly willing to have that conversation.

Good. Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.

A conversation cannot be had on hungry children in school not having proper nutrition at lunch until such time as we deal with parents to unengaged to care about adequate nutrition for their children BEFORE they have them.

After that, we'll discuss what can be done with the current children who have fallen prey to poor parenting model's promoted by society and how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children, not what harm it may do to the parents.

 

[OldLady]

No, I don't think they're doing this intentionally. They have no clue how most Americans live, and especially not people living on the margins of survival. Neither do a lot of the posters here, apparently, who think it's a dandy idea.
I've told this story before, so excuse me if you've heard it, but my mom's first teaching job was in a one room schoolhouse in a very small rural community during WWII. One family sent their kids to school with no lunch, or on a lucky day, half a raw potato. Mom would pack extra sandwiches and say "Oh, look, they packed me way too much again. Can anyone help me finish all this?" She was the federal school lunch program. Not every teacher would do that, I'm guessing, across the country in this day and age. So kids who come to school with empty stomachs would stay that way all day.

Yes, we know. It is a tale of woe.

People who lack all sense of responsibility are having children they cannot care for. It seems that we cannot punish them for their reckless behavior, so you have to punish those of us who are not as reckless to pay for their children's hunger.

As I said. Emotional blackmail.

Well, at least you realize what I am describing is a painful scenario. It seems clear the alternative is to let the kids starve. We can do that--they are doing it in Somalia, why can't we?
I know we've got some welfare bums and a lot of drug addicts (at least here we do) on SNAP that are doing their damndest to use their welfare funds on other things, but should kids, helpless to choose who their parents are, be the ones to grow up malnourished, with stunted learning capacity? It's not an easy thing to fix, but simply cutting off the funds and letting people starve is too much. This is America, not Venezuela or Somalia.

Really? The ONLY alternative you can think of is to let them starve?

Let Me know if you ever wish to have a real conversation about what we should do with children that society has to raise because the parents are worthless human beings.

I'm perfectly willing to have that conversation.

Good. Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.

A conversation cannot be had on hungry children in school not having proper nutrition at lunch until such time as we deal with parents to unengaged to care about adequate nutrition for their children BEFORE they have them.

After that, we'll discuss what can be done with the current children who have fallen prey to poor parenting model's promoted by society and how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children, not what harm it may do to the parents.

Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.
Okay, I am Pro-Choice and support Planned Parenthood funding to remain in place. That is exactly what both of those things do. As well, we could increase education efforts in the schools to help students understand the responsibilities and financial impact of having children. However, many conservatives feel that is not the place of schools but families (I don't disagree but a lot don't do it) and they call it "putting condoms on bananas instead of teaching the 3 R's.
how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children
I agree, but if you are thinking of an expanded foster care system, you're dreaming. The system would need to be completely overhauled from the bottom up in order to be "what's best for children" and would require a massive amount more funds. In extreme cases, some lucky young kids get to go to loving adoptive homes and have great lives, but the effectiveness ratio is low I was a Child Protective worker for years, so I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes, we know. It is a tale of woe.

People who lack all sense of responsibility are having children they cannot care for. It seems that we cannot punish them for their reckless behavior, so you have to punish those of us who are not as reckless to pay for their children's hunger.

As I said. Emotional blackmail.

Well, at least you realize what I am describing is a painful scenario. It seems clear the alternative is to let the kids starve. We can do that--they are doing it in Somalia, why can't we?
I know we've got some welfare bums and a lot of drug addicts (at least here we do) on SNAP that are doing their damndest to use their welfare funds on other things, but should kids, helpless to choose who their parents are, be the ones to grow up malnourished, with stunted learning capacity? It's not an easy thing to fix, but simply cutting off the funds and letting people starve is too much. This is America, not Venezuela or Somalia.

Really? The ONLY alternative you can think of is to let them starve?

Let Me know if you ever wish to have a real conversation about what we should do with children that society has to raise because the parents are worthless human beings.

I'm perfectly willing to have that conversation.

Good. Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.

A conversation cannot be had on hungry children in school not having proper nutrition at lunch until such time as we deal with parents to unengaged to care about adequate nutrition for their children BEFORE they have them.

After that, we'll discuss what can be done with the current children who have fallen prey to poor parenting model's promoted by society and how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children, not what harm it may do to the parents.

Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.
Okay, I am Pro-Choice and support Planned Parenthood funding to remain in place. That is exactly what both of those things do. As well, we could increase education efforts in the schools to help students understand the responsibilities and financial impact of having children. However, many conservatives feel that is not the place of schools but families (I don't disagree but a lot don't do it) and they call it "putting condoms on bananas instead of teaching the 3 R's.
how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children
I agree, but if you are thinking of an expanded foster care system, you're dreaming. The system would need to be completely overhauled from the bottom up in order to be "what's best for children" and would require a massive amount more funds. In extreme cases, some lucky young kids get to go to loving adoptive homes and have great lives, but the effectiveness ratio is low I was a Child Protective worker for years, so I know what I'm talking about.

Planned Parenthood is not in schools, and has little to do with this. However, I am not opposed to planned parenthood. I am opposed to them recieveing taxpayer money unless they agree to meet conditions. Having said that, nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.

You have to think of it along these lines.

Have you ever noticed the number of people who actually find it wrong to kill another person? (I'm not talking about war, but the cold-blooded murder of anothe human). I know you could look it up, but like so many other people, the statistic slides by them and they don't connect the dots.

In America in 2012, there were 14,168 killings. We can assume that for the vast majority of these, each killing was a single person who committed a murder. Have you ever tried to get the overall conviction rate of the United States for murder? It is a surprisingly difficult number to obtain. But for the sake of this example, lets take that number of killings as one person killing another.

In a nation that has 325 million people, that means that the likelihood of a child growing up to be a murderer is 0.00004%.

Now ask yourself this question.

What do we do as a nation, as a society, as a parent, that only 0.00004 percent of the children we raise end up killers? What do we teach our children that results in that kind of morality?

More importantly, how do we impart that kind of moral attitude about having children when we are not ready? You see, no on can claim that it is impossible to get that kind of result, yet we see it every year; year after year.

We instill some kind of distaste for the killing of others. We drum it into their heads, over and over and over. We promote in at home, we promote it in social media, we promote it in marketing, we promote it in movies. We promote that wrongness of killing everywhere we turn.

Now imagine having a child hunger and abuse problem that was only 0.00004% of the population.

Would that be considered a wild success by you? By others?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

To save $$ because large school districts need to shave back more and do away with more every year, they have gone to what's cheapest. It's cheaper to buy frozen preprocessed junk that costs more per meal because it's still cheaper than running a cafeteria in each school and cooking from relative scratch. It's not like cafeteria ladies are getting rich, either, but it's still cheaper to heat up garbage in a centralized kitchen. Of course kids "like it," they get it at home too. Michelle thought maybe she could introduce something a little healthier, give kids a taste of something else, but OH NO Republicans won't have that!

I don't know how your schools do it, but no schools that I have ever attended or worked in have ever done what you are talking about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

To save $$ because large school districts need to shave back more and do away with more every year, they have gone to what's cheapest. It's cheaper to buy frozen preprocessed junk that costs more per meal because it's still cheaper than running a cafeteria in each school and cooking from relative scratch. It's not like cafeteria ladies are getting rich, either, but it's still cheaper to heat up garbage in a centralized kitchen. Of course kids "like it," they get it at home too. Michelle thought maybe she could introduce something a little healthier, give kids a taste of something else, but OH NO Republicans won't have that!

And now Betsy Devos is going to destroy their funding.

Good. There should have never been a Federal Dept of Education. That money is far better spent at the local level.

The Department of Education has NOTHING to do with this topic.

 

[OldLady]

Well, at least you realize what I am describing is a painful scenario. It seems clear the alternative is to let the kids starve. We can do that--they are doing it in Somalia, why can't we?
I know we've got some welfare bums and a lot of drug addicts (at least here we do) on SNAP that are doing their damndest to use their welfare funds on other things, but should kids, helpless to choose who their parents are, be the ones to grow up malnourished, with stunted learning capacity? It's not an easy thing to fix, but simply cutting off the funds and letting people starve is too much. This is America, not Venezuela or Somalia.

Really? The ONLY alternative you can think of is to let them starve?

Let Me know if you ever wish to have a real conversation about what we should do with children that society has to raise because the parents are worthless human beings.

I'm perfectly willing to have that conversation.

Good. Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.

A conversation cannot be had on hungry children in school not having proper nutrition at lunch until such time as we deal with parents to unengaged to care about adequate nutrition for their children BEFORE they have them.

After that, we'll discuss what can be done with the current children who have fallen prey to poor parenting model's promoted by society and how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children, not what harm it may do to the parents.

Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.
Okay, I am Pro-Choice and support Planned Parenthood funding to remain in place. That is exactly what both of those things do. As well, we could increase education efforts in the schools to help students understand the responsibilities and financial impact of having children. However, many conservatives feel that is not the place of schools but families (I don't disagree but a lot don't do it) and they call it "putting condoms on bananas instead of teaching the 3 R's.
how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children
I agree, but if you are thinking of an expanded foster care system, you're dreaming. The system would need to be completely overhauled from the bottom up in order to be "what's best for children" and would require a massive amount more funds. In extreme cases, some lucky young kids get to go to loving adoptive homes and have great lives, but the effectiveness ratio is low I was a Child Protective worker for years, so I know what I'm talking about.

Planned Parenthood is not in schools, and has little to do with this. However, I am not opposed to planned parenthood. I am opposed to them recieveing taxpayer money unless they agree to meet conditions. Having said that, nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.

You have to think of it along these lines.

Have you ever noticed the number of people who actually find it wrong to kill another person? (I'm not talking about war, but the cold-blooded murder of anothe human). I know you could look it up, but like so many other people, the statistic slides by them and they don't connect the dots.

In America in 2012, there were 14,168 killings. We can assume that for the vast majority of these, each killing was a single person who committed a murder. Have you ever tried to get the overall conviction rate of the United States for murder? It is a surprisingly difficult number to obtain. But for the sake of this example, lets take that number of killings as one person killing another.

In a nation that has 325 million people, that means that the likelihood of a child growing up to be a murderer is 0.00004%.

Now ask yourself this question.

What do we do as a nation, as a society, as a parent, that only 0.00004 percent of the children we raise end up killers? What do we teach our children that results in that kind of morality?

More importantly, how do we impart that kind of moral attitude about having children when we are not ready? You see, no on can claim that it is impossible to get that kind of result, yet we see it every year; year after year.

We instill some kind of distaste for the killing of others. We drum it into their heads, over and over and over. We promote in at home, we promote it in social media, we promote it in marketing, we promote it in movies. We promote that wrongness of killing everywhere we turn.

Now imagine having a child hunger and abuse problem that was only 0.00004% of the population.

Would that be considered a wild success by you? By others?

nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.
It does indeed teach and also enable young people to have sex responsibly without bringing children into the world for which they are unprepared. That is what birth control and if necessary early termination is all about.

We learn to be parents by being raised by our own parents. You are hoping for all parents to teach their children what many, many of them never learned from their own parents. Teenaged girls having children out of wedlock were very frequently raised by moms who had children early and out of wedlock. Young men who don't take responsibility for a pregnancy are frequently young men who were raised with no father present. Abusive parents were frequently abused as kids. Drug addiction, which our Republican governor has done everything in his power to eliminate funding for, creates a new generation that is being seriously neglected because the parents are too spaced out to realize, and because they are using every penny toward drugs. It is much more complex than having the high hopes of a nationwide morality blitz. There is nothing wrong with your idea, it just isn't going to be the only answer.

I assume you and I both raised our kids to be responsible parents because we were responsible parents and learned that from our parents. That is how we learn to parent and how to view the world, for the most part. There is nothing wrong with parenting education in school, or with a media blitz encouraging young people to act responsibly, but you won't get the majority of them to stop having sex so birth control and sex education are the most effective ways to prevent having children irresponsibly. I don't know what "conditions" you want to put on Planned Parenthood--no more abortion, I am guessing--but it will make the problem we are discussing worse. If you are alright with that, fine.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you really gave a shit about what your children are eating, then you'd not buy a school lunch for them. You would act like a mature adult and pack them a lunch with ingredients you know are good for them, tastes better than the school gruel and on the plus side, know what your kids were eating.

Do away with all federal funding for school lunch programs. The funds, if they are to be had, should come from the school district, paid for by the community.

Great idea, except most hungry kids who are getting two meals a day at school free come from poor communities that can't afford to pay more than they already do. Packing healthy lunches is expensive and wouldn't be possible on a family's SNAP budget. I'm just telling ya, this would only make poor kids hungrier.

Betsy DeVos knows that. So does trump.

According to the right its, Let them eat cake. Better yet, starve.

No, I don't think they're doing this intentionally. They have no clue how most Americans live, and especially not people living on the margins of survival. Neither do a lot of the posters here, apparently, who think it's a dandy idea.
I've told this story before, so excuse me if you've heard it, but my mom's first teaching job was in a one room schoolhouse in a very small rural community during WWII. One family sent their kids to school with no lunch, or on a lucky day, half a raw potato. Mom would pack extra sandwiches and say "Oh, look, they packed me way too much again. Can anyone help me finish all this?" She was the federal school lunch program. Not every teacher would do that, I'm guessing, across the country in this day and age. So kids who come to school with empty stomachs would stay that way all day.

Parents like that today should be jailed.

 

[OldLady]

To save $$ because large school districts need to shave back more and do away with more every year, they have gone to what's cheapest. It's cheaper to buy frozen preprocessed junk that costs more per meal because it's still cheaper than running a cafeteria in each school and cooking from relative scratch. It's not like cafeteria ladies are getting rich, either, but it's still cheaper to heat up garbage in a centralized kitchen. Of course kids "like it," they get it at home too. Michelle thought maybe she could introduce something a little healthier, give kids a taste of something else, but OH NO Republicans won't have that!

I don't know how your schools do it, but no schools that I have ever attended or worked in have ever done what you are talking about.

A lot of the large school districts do it and the food quality, even at our local schools is poorer, imo. I hear they don't get the USDA surplus like they used to.

 

[Darkwind]

Really? The ONLY alternative you can think of is to let them starve?

Let Me know if you ever wish to have a real conversation about what we should do with children that society has to raise because the parents are worthless human beings.

I'm perfectly willing to have that conversation.

Good. Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.

A conversation cannot be had on hungry children in school not having proper nutrition at lunch until such time as we deal with parents to unengaged to care about adequate nutrition for their children BEFORE they have them.

After that, we'll discuss what can be done with the current children who have fallen prey to poor parenting model's promoted by society and how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children, not what harm it may do to the parents.

Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.
Okay, I am Pro-Choice and support Planned Parenthood funding to remain in place. That is exactly what both of those things do. As well, we could increase education efforts in the schools to help students understand the responsibilities and financial impact of having children. However, many conservatives feel that is not the place of schools but families (I don't disagree but a lot don't do it) and they call it "putting condoms on bananas instead of teaching the 3 R's.
how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children
I agree, but if you are thinking of an expanded foster care system, you're dreaming. The system would need to be completely overhauled from the bottom up in order to be "what's best for children" and would require a massive amount more funds. In extreme cases, some lucky young kids get to go to loving adoptive homes and have great lives, but the effectiveness ratio is low I was a Child Protective worker for years, so I know what I'm talking about.

Planned Parenthood is not in schools, and has little to do with this. However, I am not opposed to planned parenthood. I am opposed to them recieveing taxpayer money unless they agree to meet conditions. Having said that, nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.

You have to think of it along these lines.

Have you ever noticed the number of people who actually find it wrong to kill another person? (I'm not talking about war, but the cold-blooded murder of anothe human). I know you could look it up, but like so many other people, the statistic slides by them and they don't connect the dots.

In America in 2012, there were 14,168 killings. We can assume that for the vast majority of these, each killing was a single person who committed a murder. Have you ever tried to get the overall conviction rate of the United States for murder? It is a surprisingly difficult number to obtain. But for the sake of this example, lets take that number of killings as one person killing another.

In a nation that has 325 million people, that means that the likelihood of a child growing up to be a murderer is 0.00004%.

Now ask yourself this question.

What do we do as a nation, as a society, as a parent, that only 0.00004 percent of the children we raise end up killers? What do we teach our children that results in that kind of morality?

More importantly, how do we impart that kind of moral attitude about having children when we are not ready? You see, no on can claim that it is impossible to get that kind of result, yet we see it every year; year after year.

We instill some kind of distaste for the killing of others. We drum it into their heads, over and over and over. We promote in at home, we promote it in social media, we promote it in marketing, we promote it in movies. We promote that wrongness of killing everywhere we turn.

Now imagine having a child hunger and abuse problem that was only 0.00004% of the population.

Would that be considered a wild success by you? By others?

nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.
It does indeed teach and also enable young people to have sex responsibly without bringing children into the world for which they are unprepared. That is what birth control and if necessary early termination is all about.

We learn to be parents by being raised by our own parents. You are hoping for all parents to teach their children what many, many of them never learned from their own parents. Teenaged girls having children out of wedlock were very frequently raised by moms who had children early and out of wedlock. Young men who don't take responsibility for a pregnancy are frequently young men who were raised with no father present. Abusive parents were frequently abused as kids. Drug addiction, which our Republican governor has done everything in his power to eliminate funding for, creates a new generation that is being seriously neglected because the parents are too spaced out to realize, and because they are using every penny toward drugs. It is much more complex than having the high hopes of a nationwide morality blitz. There is nothing wrong with your idea, it just isn't going to be the only answer.

I assume you and I both raised our kids to be responsible parents because we were responsible parents and learned that from our parents. That is how we learn to parent and how to view the world, for the most part. There is nothing wrong with parenting education in school, or with a media blitz encouraging young people to act responsibly, but you won't get the majority of them to stop having sex so birth control and sex education are the most effective ways to prevent having children irresponsibly. I don't know what "conditions" you want to put on Planned Parenthood--no more abortion, I am guessing--but it will make the problem we are discussing worse. If you are alright with that, fine.

You fall into the same trap that all the other short-sighted people do. You didn't even address My reply.

What specifically do we do that universally teaches children to find it morally wrong to kill another human?

If it can be passed along universally for that issue, it can be done for any issue.

So, stop thinking short-term (unless you have some vested interest in ensuring that the problem never gets resolved) and start thinking about what we do as a nation, as a society, as a culture and as parents that work.

This will require people to actually think about what it is they find abhorrent about any specific issue.

Is it abhorrent to kill? Universally, we say yes.
Is it abhorrent to raise hungry children? Universally, we say yes.

So, what causes people to shrug off what they think is wrong in one instance and not in the other?

What is missing?

 

[OldLady]

If you really gave a shit about what your children are eating, then you'd not buy a school lunch for them. You would act like a mature adult and pack them a lunch with ingredients you know are good for them, tastes better than the school gruel and on the plus side, know what your kids were eating.

Do away with all federal funding for school lunch programs. The funds, if they are to be had, should come from the school district, paid for by the community.

Great idea, except most hungry kids who are getting two meals a day at school free come from poor communities that can't afford to pay more than they already do. Packing healthy lunches is expensive and wouldn't be possible on a family's SNAP budget. I'm just telling ya, this would only make poor kids hungrier.

Betsy DeVos knows that. So does trump.

According to the right its, Let them eat cake. Better yet, starve.

No, I don't think they're doing this intentionally. They have no clue how most Americans live, and especially not people living on the margins of survival. Neither do a lot of the posters here, apparently, who think it's a dandy idea.
I've told this story before, so excuse me if you've heard it, but my mom's first teaching job was in a one room schoolhouse in a very small rural community during WWII. One family sent their kids to school with no lunch, or on a lucky day, half a raw potato. Mom would pack extra sandwiches and say "Oh, look, they packed me way too much again. Can anyone help me finish all this?" She was the federal school lunch program. Not every teacher would do that, I'm guessing, across the country in this day and age. So kids who come to school with empty stomachs would stay that way all day.

Parents like that today should be jailed.

Those people didn't want to starve their kids; they had nine or ten of them, mom said, and he was a lumberjack. In our area, we didn't have factories for the mother to work in -- she had too many kids anyway, to make that work. Maybe the father drank the grocery money, I don't know, but it was a lot of mouths to feed and the kids didn't all have shoes, or warm coats in the winter. They lived in a cramped shack. It was sad.
I don't think even in this day and age we want to reinstitute the Poor House. Or do you?

 

[westwall]

To save $$ because large school districts need to shave back more and do away with more every year, they have gone to what's cheapest. It's cheaper to buy frozen preprocessed junk that costs more per meal because it's still cheaper than running a cafeteria in each school and cooking from relative scratch. It's not like cafeteria ladies are getting rich, either, but it's still cheaper to heat up garbage in a centralized kitchen. Of course kids "like it," they get it at home too. Michelle thought maybe she could introduce something a little healthier, give kids a taste of something else, but OH NO Republicans won't have that!

And now Betsy Devos is going to destroy their funding.

Good. There should have never been a Federal Dept of Education. That money is far better spent at the local level.

The Department of Education has NOTHING to do with this topic.

I thought that all of this was a directive sent down from them?

 

[OldLady]

I'm perfectly willing to have that conversation.

Good. Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.

A conversation cannot be had on hungry children in school not having proper nutrition at lunch until such time as we deal with parents to unengaged to care about adequate nutrition for their children BEFORE they have them.

After that, we'll discuss what can be done with the current children who have fallen prey to poor parenting model's promoted by society and how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children, not what harm it may do to the parents.

Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.
Okay, I am Pro-Choice and support Planned Parenthood funding to remain in place. That is exactly what both of those things do. As well, we could increase education efforts in the schools to help students understand the responsibilities and financial impact of having children. However, many conservatives feel that is not the place of schools but families (I don't disagree but a lot don't do it) and they call it "putting condoms on bananas instead of teaching the 3 R's.
how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children
I agree, but if you are thinking of an expanded foster care system, you're dreaming. The system would need to be completely overhauled from the bottom up in order to be "what's best for children" and would require a massive amount more funds. In extreme cases, some lucky young kids get to go to loving adoptive homes and have great lives, but the effectiveness ratio is low I was a Child Protective worker for years, so I know what I'm talking about.

Planned Parenthood is not in schools, and has little to do with this. However, I am not opposed to planned parenthood. I am opposed to them recieveing taxpayer money unless they agree to meet conditions. Having said that, nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.

You have to think of it along these lines.

Have you ever noticed the number of people who actually find it wrong to kill another person? (I'm not talking about war, but the cold-blooded murder of anothe human). I know you could look it up, but like so many other people, the statistic slides by them and they don't connect the dots.

In America in 2012, there were 14,168 killings. We can assume that for the vast majority of these, each killing was a single person who committed a murder. Have you ever tried to get the overall conviction rate of the United States for murder? It is a surprisingly difficult number to obtain. But for the sake of this example, lets take that number of killings as one person killing another.

In a nation that has 325 million people, that means that the likelihood of a child growing up to be a murderer is 0.00004%.

Now ask yourself this question.

What do we do as a nation, as a society, as a parent, that only 0.00004 percent of the children we raise end up killers? What do we teach our children that results in that kind of morality?

More importantly, how do we impart that kind of moral attitude about having children when we are not ready? You see, no on can claim that it is impossible to get that kind of result, yet we see it every year; year after year.

We instill some kind of distaste for the killing of others. We drum it into their heads, over and over and over. We promote in at home, we promote it in social media, we promote it in marketing, we promote it in movies. We promote that wrongness of killing everywhere we turn.

Now imagine having a child hunger and abuse problem that was only 0.00004% of the population.

Would that be considered a wild success by you? By others?

nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.
It does indeed teach and also enable young people to have sex responsibly without bringing children into the world for which they are unprepared. That is what birth control and if necessary early termination is all about.

We learn to be parents by being raised by our own parents. You are hoping for all parents to teach their children what many, many of them never learned from their own parents. Teenaged girls having children out of wedlock were very frequently raised by moms who had children early and out of wedlock. Young men who don't take responsibility for a pregnancy are frequently young men who were raised with no father present. Abusive parents were frequently abused as kids. Drug addiction, which our Republican governor has done everything in his power to eliminate funding for, creates a new generation that is being seriously neglected because the parents are too spaced out to realize, and because they are using every penny toward drugs. It is much more complex than having the high hopes of a nationwide morality blitz. There is nothing wrong with your idea, it just isn't going to be the only answer.

I assume you and I both raised our kids to be responsible parents because we were responsible parents and learned that from our parents. That is how we learn to parent and how to view the world, for the most part. There is nothing wrong with parenting education in school, or with a media blitz encouraging young people to act responsibly, but you won't get the majority of them to stop having sex so birth control and sex education are the most effective ways to prevent having children irresponsibly. I don't know what "conditions" you want to put on Planned Parenthood--no more abortion, I am guessing--but it will make the problem we are discussing worse. If you are alright with that, fine.

You fall into the same trap that all the other short-sighted people do. You didn't even address My reply.

What specifically do we do that universally teaches children to find it morally wrong to kill another human?

If it can be passed along universally for that issue, it can be done for any issue.

So, stop thinking short-term (unless you have some vested interest in ensuring that the problem never gets resolved) and start thinking about what we do as a nation, as a society, as a culture and as parents that work.

This will require people to actually think about what it is they find abhorrent about any specific issue.

Is it abhorrent to kill? Universally, we say yes.
Is it abhorrent to raise hungry children? Universally, we say yes.

So, what causes people to shrug off what they think is wrong in one instance and not in the other?

What is missing?

I have to go. I'm not going to argue abortion with you. However, I will talk with you more about this if you wish.

 

[Darkwind]

Good. Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.

A conversation cannot be had on hungry children in school not having proper nutrition at lunch until such time as we deal with parents to unengaged to care about adequate nutrition for their children BEFORE they have them.

After that, we'll discuss what can be done with the current children who have fallen prey to poor parenting model's promoted by society and how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children, not what harm it may do to the parents.

Begin with programs and education you would implement that would FIRST stop young adults from creating children they cannot financially afford, nor provide for emotionally.
Okay, I am Pro-Choice and support Planned Parenthood funding to remain in place. That is exactly what both of those things do. As well, we could increase education efforts in the schools to help students understand the responsibilities and financial impact of having children. However, many conservatives feel that is not the place of schools but families (I don't disagree but a lot don't do it) and they call it "putting condoms on bananas instead of teaching the 3 R's.
how best these children can be cared for. That discussion MUST center around what is best for the children
I agree, but if you are thinking of an expanded foster care system, you're dreaming. The system would need to be completely overhauled from the bottom up in order to be "what's best for children" and would require a massive amount more funds. In extreme cases, some lucky young kids get to go to loving adoptive homes and have great lives, but the effectiveness ratio is low I was a Child Protective worker for years, so I know what I'm talking about.

Planned Parenthood is not in schools, and has little to do with this. However, I am not opposed to planned parenthood. I am opposed to them recieveing taxpayer money unless they agree to meet conditions. Having said that, nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.

You have to think of it along these lines.

Have you ever noticed the number of people who actually find it wrong to kill another person? (I'm not talking about war, but the cold-blooded murder of anothe human). I know you could look it up, but like so many other people, the statistic slides by them and they don't connect the dots.

In America in 2012, there were 14,168 killings. We can assume that for the vast majority of these, each killing was a single person who committed a murder. Have you ever tried to get the overall conviction rate of the United States for murder? It is a surprisingly difficult number to obtain. But for the sake of this example, lets take that number of killings as one person killing another.

In a nation that has 325 million people, that means that the likelihood of a child growing up to be a murderer is 0.00004%.

Now ask yourself this question.

What do we do as a nation, as a society, as a parent, that only 0.00004 percent of the children we raise end up killers? What do we teach our children that results in that kind of morality?

More importantly, how do we impart that kind of moral attitude about having children when we are not ready? You see, no on can claim that it is impossible to get that kind of result, yet we see it every year; year after year.

We instill some kind of distaste for the killing of others. We drum it into their heads, over and over and over. We promote in at home, we promote it in social media, we promote it in marketing, we promote it in movies. We promote that wrongness of killing everywhere we turn.

Now imagine having a child hunger and abuse problem that was only 0.00004% of the population.

Would that be considered a wild success by you? By others?

nothing Planned Parenthood would work toward getting young people to actually believe that having children when they are not financially ready or emotionally equipped is adequate.
It does indeed teach and also enable young people to have sex responsibly without bringing children into the world for which they are unprepared. That is what birth control and if necessary early termination is all about.

We learn to be parents by being raised by our own parents. You are hoping for all parents to teach their children what many, many of them never learned from their own parents. Teenaged girls having children out of wedlock were very frequently raised by moms who had children early and out of wedlock. Young men who don't take responsibility for a pregnancy are frequently young men who were raised with no father present. Abusive parents were frequently abused as kids. Drug addiction, which our Republican governor has done everything in his power to eliminate funding for, creates a new generation that is being seriously neglected because the parents are too spaced out to realize, and because they are using every penny toward drugs. It is much more complex than having the high hopes of a nationwide morality blitz. There is nothing wrong with your idea, it just isn't going to be the only answer.

I assume you and I both raised our kids to be responsible parents because we were responsible parents and learned that from our parents. That is how we learn to parent and how to view the world, for the most part. There is nothing wrong with parenting education in school, or with a media blitz encouraging young people to act responsibly, but you won't get the majority of them to stop having sex so birth control and sex education are the most effective ways to prevent having children irresponsibly. I don't know what "conditions" you want to put on Planned Parenthood--no more abortion, I am guessing--but it will make the problem we are discussing worse. If you are alright with that, fine.

You fall into the same trap that all the other short-sighted people do. You didn't even address My reply.

What specifically do we do that universally teaches children to find it morally wrong to kill another human?

If it can be passed along universally for that issue, it can be done for any issue.

So, stop thinking short-term (unless you have some vested interest in ensuring that the problem never gets resolved) and start thinking about what we do as a nation, as a society, as a culture and as parents that work.

This will require people to actually think about what it is they find abhorrent about any specific issue.

Is it abhorrent to kill? Universally, we say yes.
Is it abhorrent to raise hungry children? Universally, we say yes.

So, what causes people to shrug off what they think is wrong in one instance and not in the other?

What is missing?

I have to go. I'm not going to argue abortion with you. However, I will talk with you more about this if you wish.

I'm not talking abortion.

Abotion has nothing to do with teaching children to abhor the notion of having children before they are ready.

Have a nice day. I'm going to break out the flight simulator and take a few flights around the country. Take care.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ya'll need to shove it with your disrespect for cultural appreciations. Us German folks think peeps should have a little weight on them. I'm the same way and its idk almost a symbol of success in my head or something. I've always found thin folks to be less "attractive" - not saying hugely overweight, but a little meat on them. Especially women. I dislike my body because I'm too thin.

Being "too thin" is not a problem in America. Your children have a lower life expectancy than their parents because your food is over-processed and full of fat, salt and preservatives, and schools are cutting phys ed to cut expenses. Kids go home from school and play video games. Not a healthy diet or way of life.

 

[Desperado]

Good... The Federal government should never have been telling local schools what should be on their menus

 

[baileyn45]

Personally I have no problem with Michelle Obama pushing for healthier lunches, seems like a perfect first lady gig. Unfortunately her efforts were in vain, as anyone that has raised children can attest. Throw in institutional food and you can forget it.

To me the real issue is that many of these children rely on these meals. That is utterly mind numbing in this day and age. Sadly it falls back on parents, or lack thereof.

As to the quality of cafeteria food, I don't know what can be done. I feel bad kids can't do what I did and have lunch with ma everyday, home cooked food and watch Jeopardy everyday.

 

[Picaro]

Our school lunches were made from big giant bulk cans and bags with 'U.S. Government' stamped on them. Wasn't gourmet but it was good enough; I still have fond memories of the peanut butter cookies hand made by the cafeteria ladies and the fresh rolls and the meat loafs. Dirt cheap for the quantities and quality, mediocre as it was. No junk food like potato chips or soft drinks and that sort of crap anywhere in sight; you had to wait til after school was out and use your own money to stop by the store or the Dairy Queen if you wanted that stuff.

 

[TomParks]

Personally I have no problem with Michelle Obama pushing for healthier lunches, seems like a perfect first lady gig. Unfortunately her efforts were in vain, as anyone that has raised children can attest. Throw in institutional food and you can forget it.

To me the real issue is that many of these children rely on these meals. That is utterly mind numbing in this day and age. Sadly it falls back on parents, or lack thereof.

As to the quality of cafeteria food, I don't know what can be done. I feel bad kids can't do what I did and have lunch with ma everyday, home cooked food and watch Jeopardy everyday.

Her daughters got to feed on chicken and ribs with watermelon and grape soda I kid you not at their private school.......

The poor black kids got those chicken nuggets that look like sponge inside

 

[TomParks]

The schools are already feeding our kids such a bunch of junk, what difference does it make? Processed reheated frozen foods packed and trucked across town. Yum!

Yeah, when I think about the shit they fed us when I was a kid I cringe.

Monkey meat....it does a body good........

 

[EverCurious]

RE The derail into teaching kids to be responsible.

So tonight is prom, last week my youngest son had told me that his GF's parents were making them break up. He didn't want to talk about it at the time. The other day I asked him if he was still taking Hailey or not and he was like oh, that was a misunderstanding, they thought I'd slept with her so I had to go tell them there's no way were having kids until we're married and financially settled.

I'm not religious, kids not religious either. There is more to it than teaching abstinence. I've taught my boys that no matter how much they or their woman wants kids if they're not ready for it financially they're doing their kids a disservice, in fact, I likened it to child abuse because they were intentionally bringing into a unstable financial situation. Not one of my children has kids yet, the eldest daughter is 30, the four boys are 25, 24, 23, and 18. All of them are well on their way to having middle-class or better lives.