Kids need breakfast and lunch, even if they're overweight. The problem is that most school meals are high in fat and simple carbs. Typical breakfast menus at our school included French toast sticks and syrup, sausage biscuits, pastries, waffles, bacon and eggs, and pancakes.
Lunch in many schools is no better. Thankfully, our school provided salads as a choice every day - lettuce, tomatoes, turkey, raw broccoli, fresh fruit, a little grated cheese, and low fat dressing. This is something on which I agree with Mrs. Obama. I'm not for forcing kids to eat salads - a few kids actually need the calories from high carb meals. I am, however, for giving kids a healthy salad as an option.
The problem is, most of the kids who are on free or reduced price lunches aren't going to get any better food at home, and in some cases won't get any food at all outside of school. At least at school the meals are theoretically balanced, even if in practice the kids tend to eat the cheese pizza and ignore the nasty frozen "carrot and pea medley" that comes on the side.
What we really need is an overhaul of the ag subsidy practices so fruits and vegetables are cheaper than corn and its 48272732763872 unhealthy by-products. Then you might have both healthier school meals and more kids eating healthy at home.
One problem is that it seems that the only 'healthy' meal people can come up with is a boring salad. That's why kids don't want to eat well. And also, the incrimination of fat. Children do not want to eat salad everyday for lunch. They are growing. They need foods with healthy calories, not no calories.
A chef salad with meat, boiled eggs, and cheese doesn't have "no calories." Our high school students LOVED having a choice of salad every day. I agree that more healthy choices would be even better, but most school cafeterias work with a tight budget, and simple carbs are cheap.
That would depend on how much meat is included. I'd still find that rather boring so there would need to be other choices. How about a tortilla wrap or something like that? Pizza can also have thin crust and include these ingredients. It would be a start. I also don't think the fat content of the cheese and dressing is an essential concern.
Calories are units of energy. They have no nutritional value. Thus, a child can consume too many calories and become overweight while still lacking nutrients essential to his or her health.
Fast food is not nutritious, but it is cheap and filling, ergo it's popular among low income families. You can get a burger for $1 that will fill you up for hours. The amount of salad it would take to do the same is at least two or three times more expensive from scratch and five to ten times more in a restaurant. Progressives are not trying to "lead you stupid people to do the right thing," we're trying to make it possible for people to do the right thing.
Repairguy....my sister is a 3rd grade teacher in the Richmond District (California-Bay Area).
While there is a school in this district where the families are affluent (mostly white...living up in the hills), the bulk of the community are poor, of minority background, and mostly are immigrants.
She recounts to me how many of her students come to school without having eaten...without lunches.
Myself, I have seen this far too often here in my own community.
The dependence theory you are pushing is a load of bunk...
If you want to see what dependence actually looks like, you can start with the creation of the reservation system for Native Americans and couple that with our good 'ol fashioned slave and indentured servitude history...
Dependence? How about the dependence of wannabe "gentlemen" using headrights to get their hands on land...
Hypocrisy abounds.......especially coming from the "repair guy".... I think he needs some maintenance work of his own...
I had students from poor families, too. For many of them, the food they got at school was about the only food they got all day. Even if their parents were "lazy dependents," it's not the fault of the kids. Should we just let them starve?
1. Skinny and healthy are not synonymous. Just ask Karen Carpenter or the Ramos sisters.
2. The entertainment industry isn't shamed for "providing children with skinny role models," they're shamed for providing children with literally unattainable standards of beauty. Models, actresses, etc. not only have personal chefs, personal trainers, nutritionists, stylists, makeup artists, and plastic surgeons to help them stay skinny and look beautiful all the time, their photographs then get airbrushed and manipulated so they're even skinnier and more beautiful looking than they actually are. In some cases, the "photos" you see on magazine covers aren't even a real woman - they're the most beautiful parts of multiple different women Frankensteined together to teach girls that they will never, ever be skinny or beautiful enough.
I see what you're attempting to do, but unfortunately I'm sure someone will most likely come along and see it for something else, which isn't going to look very good for you, but will make the liberal logic(as you call it) seem pretty sane.
Even me, not being as bright as I liked to be, can see how giving kids free breakfasts and lunch at school, would help them to not gain weight, but more importantly I can also see a couple of really bad effects from doing it, which really have nothing to do with "Kids are too fat".
However, good luck.
Just in case, your post was pure sarcasm? or supposedly funny? Well, let's just say, from my perspective- it wasn't funny and the sarcasm? can be done without.
What about this one: Wanting Intelligent Design taught in school, alongside Evolution, or doing away with the Theory of Evolution altogether...while other developed countries far outperform our students.
What about it? Do you think the problem is what is being taught or the one charged with teaching not doing their job? Could it be bureaucrats mandating that evolution or intelligent design be taught at all instead of teaching what kids really should know?
Exactly. While I generally think there's a lot of funky logic behind liberal ideas, any nutrition specialist can tell you that spaced out meals is far healthier than going most of the day without a solid meal, then overcompensating at night by eating too much. That's why starvation diets fail.
How rich is enough? There has been a huge "redistribution," to use a favorite right wing word, of income and wealth from the middle class and poor to the multi-millionaires and billionaires in the past 30 years thanks to tax cuts and gaping loop holes for people like Mitt Romney and the billionaires who are supporting him, not to mention the international oil companies like Exxon-Mobil.
But again, if you impose a new tax, and it actually has the effect of REDUCING federal revenue, you actually have LESS wealth to redistribute.
Why knock something that makes EVERYONE richer simply because "everyone," by definition, includes the already wealthy?
I'm not talking about loopholes and willy-nilly tax cuts. Yes, those are bad. I'm talking purely about capital gains, the one place where the tax rate has an INVERSE effect on net federal revenue and the one place where trickle-down apparently actually works.
Arthur Laffer's theory that new taxes produce less revenue and tax cuts result in more revenue was disproven long ago. The proper tax rate is the one that balances the budget and provides the revenue needed to provide necessary public services in a democratic society. As I recall, George H.W. Bush called your theory "voodoo economics." He was correct.
By most orthodox economists who have studied the record.
Contemporary economists do not consider supply-side economics a tenable economic theory, with Alan Blinder calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 textbook. Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook. In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review, James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…" “ The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts. - Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.
Claiming that Christianity is not a form of diversity while praising Islam for this same reason. Later (whenever it benefits them), liberals will compare the two, claiming that few differences exist between them.
these are excerpts from an email from Liberty Central...one of many conservative groups on the move for Liberty in the elections...........................How do we know liberals are getting desperate? Because they are...
Why do political people seem to demonize the opposition rather than discuss issues?I see this on both the right and the left and it drives me batty. Why do conservatives like to use "liberal" as a dirty...