Please present your lunch for inspection little Suzy...

EndersShadow

Steve:

While I agree many cant afford to not work, depending on the income of both spouses sometimes its actually worth it to have one stay at home. The cost for child care is ridiculous here as of late to the point where most of my wife's salary would be going to pay for it with very little extra actually going to pay bills.

At that point its almost worth it to home school and let my wife stay home. That way I can ensure the right values are instilled and not be taking a financial hit (or barely breaking even).

Tony M

It all started when they took prayer out of public schools.

As soon as that was done, all hell has broken loose, and now this.....

Doesn't surprise me a bit.

But you know, all government jobs spawn more gov. jobs for brothers and sisters, sons and daughters and aunts and uncles and any friend you might know has to be put somewhere.....so they make up a friken title and some duty and walla....an idiotic worthless job that has little cause to be it the first place. So they either sit and don't do much ( I know for a fact that some do 15 min. a day worth of production such as copy) or they have to come up with inspecting and writing a friken citation with a fine to anounce their job IS important. See, this infraction I uncovered they announce. Yea, thanks. It's like the young German gastapo kid in "the sound of music" did. Tring to say hey, I have authoriti, you must comply.

The Superintendent of schools is really hard to contact on a person to person level just like senators and congressman. I agree, if there isn't enough voices rioting out in front of schools, they don't give a rats' arse.

And when the woman sued McDonalds over the too hot coffee and won. think of the opportunists brains that were lit up around this country with ideas of who could be sued for what. This suit did bring about the commonsence laws in some localities.

steveinaz

EndersShadow wrote: »

Steve:

While I agree many cant afford to not work, depending on the income of both spouses sometimes its actually worth it to have one stay at home. The cost for child care is ridiculous here as of late to the point where most of my wife's salary would be going to pay for it with very little extra actually going to pay bills.

At that point its almost worth it to home school and let my wife stay home. That way I can ensure the right values are instilled and not be taking a financial hit (or barely breaking even).

Agree, sometimes you can swing it. If you can realign your budget to pull it off, it can pay huge rewards for sure. I know a couple people at work whose wives home schooled their children to the 8th grade, and those kids were wicked smart, and basically bored through high school.

My daughter-in-law Jenny (school teacher BTW) chose to stay at home with the grandkids until 1st grade; had them all reading, writing, taking care of themselves right out of the gate. All 3 of them are in accelerated learning programs now.

EndersShadow

steveinaz wrote: »

Agree, sometimes you can swing it. If you can realign your budget to pull it off, it can pay huge rewards for sure. I know a couple people at work whose wives home schooled their children to the 8th grade, and those kids were wicked smart, and basically bored through high school.

My daughter-in-law Jenny (school teacher BTW) chose to stay at home with the grandkids until 1st grade; had them all reading, writing, taking care of themselves right out of the gate. All 3 of them are in accelerated learning programs now.

Yup thats what we are in the advance stages of planning. Lots depends on my upcoming salary reviews on what we do. I am hoping to be able to let her stay home as thats what both of us experienced and would prefer our future children to. But its all about the benjamins .

steveinaz

When you think about it, not only is it an investment in their social development, it's also an investment that can pay big dividends in the form of scholarships down the road.

maximillian

Tony M wrote: »

And when the woman sued McDonalds over the too hot coffee and won. think of the opportunists brains that were lit up around this country with ideas of who could be sued for what. This suit did bring about the commonsence laws in some localities.

I do believe we are a sue happy country, but this case should not be an example of that. If you read the facts in the case you wouldn't be so quick to judge the woman on her motives. First, McDonald's was serving 180F coffee which is scalding and undrinkable. They admitted in court that they didn't know the risk such hot coffee would have. Hot coffee is served at 140-150F and can only cause minimal 3rd degree burns. There's a photo (thankfully blurred) on the Net of the woman's inner thighs, they are massively burned with 3rd degree burns. It put her in the hospital for 8 days. Second, she asked for McDonald's to pay for her medical bills and lost wages which totaled about $18K. McDonalds didn't want to pay and that is what prompted the lawsuit. Third, a jury of regular folk agreed and awarded much more money to her than $18K.

If you Google "Liebeck's burns" you can see the photos of the burns. Warning, they are graphic; therefore I will not link to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

Bobsama

steveinaz wrote: »

Max--I agree a nutritionist for the purpose of ensuring school provided lunches are healthy is a good idea.

What would make more sense to me is a regional contract nutritionist who specializes in adolescent diets. Have them come in every so often and check the cafeterias and spot-check the bag lunches (not by inspecting or seizing, but by observing). Send home information packets about healthy diets for children or parent-teacher contact to improve the situation.

quadzilla

Tony M wrote: »

It all started when they took prayer out of public schools.

As soon as that was done, all hell has broken loose, and now this.....

[citation needed]

concealer404

I fail to see what taking prayer out of PUBLIC schools had to do with it.

steveinaz

I think he's saying that this was starting point for Government to start sticking it's nose in deeper and deeper into the public school system. I would tend to agree.

This is an easy fix. All we need to do is look at how things were done in the 1950's, 60's and 70's....and whatever has changed---PUT IT BACK to what it was. Problem solved. You know, silly things like dress codes, discipline, core curriculum that mattered--that kind of thing.

concealer404

steveinaz wrote: »

I think he's saying that this was starting point for Government to start sticking it's nose in deeper and deeper into the public school system. I would tend to agree.

This is an easy fix. All we need to do is look at how things were done in the 1950's, 60's and 70's....and whatever has changed---PUT IT BACK to what it was. Problem solved. You know, silly things like dress codes, discipline, core curriculum that mattered--that kind of thing.

I understand that... but purely on point of a different subject, that's something that shouldn't have been in a government run institution in the first place. Separation of church and state and all that.


Anyways....

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10731857/

Confusion over a state assessment of a government-funded pre-kindergarten program caused the child to believe she had to go through the cafeteria line and get the chicken nuggets lunch provided by the school, said Bob Barnes, assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction in Hoke County.

The assessment requires the school to review children's lunches for nutrition, Barnes said. If a homemade lunch is determined to be missing one of the food groups required by United States Department of Agriculture regulations, the school is supposed to offer it to the student for free.

"What is supposed to happen is the teacher is supposed to go over and get the missing item, which I'm assuming was milk in this case, and offer it to the child," Barnes said. "The child can take it or not take it."

But the girl wound up getting put in the lunch line to get a full lunch, Barnes said.

"I don't know whether the child was confused. I don't know whether the teacher gave poor direction. I don't know, but again, that child thought she had to go through the line," he said. "If there's a mistake, that's our mistake."

The headline should be "Small Child Gets Confused, Buys Chicken Nuggets."

Unfortunately, that's not quite so glamorous or fun to argue about, is it?

nooshinjohn

concealer404 wrote: »

I understand that... but purely on point of a different subject, that's something that shouldn't have been in a government run institution in the first place. Separation of church and state and all that.


Anyways....

I challlenge you to find separation of church and state in the Constitution or in the bill of rights. Simply put, it does NOT exist. This doctrine comes from a very poor SC descision and nothing else. The Consititution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means that telling a kid they cannot pray in the public square (school) not only violates his or her religious liberty, but also the freedom of speach. Nowhere above does it say that you cannot pray as as single individual or as a large group on public land or at school. Since 1913 or so, law schools in this country teach something called "case law" and not "constitutional law". What this does is remove the legal system from our founding core principles one bad descision at a time.

Thanks Progressives.:evil:

concealer404

Sorry, i read that backwards it seems.

I thought he was talking about removing FORCED prayer from schools.

As far as i'm concerned, if a kid wants to pray in public, be my guest, enjoy, knock yourself out. Force a kid to pray, or hold a school-wide prayer session, it'll be my boot up the principle's ****.

Carry on.

tonyb

Good post John.
Let me add that case law, is what is most used in decisions today being made. Heck, some even use international laws in deciding cases within our borders. IMHO, case law is used to circumvent what some consider to be an ageing document, the constitution. Case law is also used to provide certain agenda's with legal footing, regardless if you subscribe to that agenda or not. Why ? If the laws were to be strict constitutional laws, then alot of the freebies people enjoy today would go away, and the government would not have the power it does today either. So the motivation is there to work around a constitution that doesn't benefit a groups interests. This has been going on for so long now, that the constitution is now more or less a document of history than one we live by today. Some believe thats how it should be, others such as myself, think not.

tonyb

concealer404 wrote: »

Sorry, i read that backwards it seems.

I thought he was talking about removing FORCED prayer from schools.

As far as i'm concerned, if a kid wants to pray in public, be my guest, enjoy, knock yourself out. Force a kid to pray, or hold a school-wide prayer session, it'll be my boot up the principle's ****.

Carry on.

Nobody forces a kid to pray in public schools. The problem came in when one student didn't subscribe to a certain religion. Thus, we changed what worked for hundreds of students to accomadate the one. That continues on today. One kid is allergic to peanuts, the whole school is banned from bringing anything with nuts in it.

This should be a local community decision, not one made by an agency 3000 miles away. If you open a public school in a predominately christian community, whats wrong with a prayer every now and then ? Same goes if your muslim, knock your socks off if that school is in a muslim community.

America has always been a melting pot of culture, thats one of our great strengths. To just outright deny culture because one person is offended is wrong, plain and simple.

concealer404

I'm offended, please delete your post. :razz:

steveinaz

tonyb wrote: »

Nobody forces a kid to pray in public schools. The problem came in when one student didn't subscribe to a certain religion. Thus, we changed what worked for hundreds of students to accomadate the one.

EXACTLY---FOR THE WIN. Make the "many" change to satisfy the ONE. BS in my book.

tonyb

concealer404 wrote: »

I'm offended, please delete your post. :razz:

LOL !!

Yeah...well I'm offended you have a nicer football stadium than we do. Please knock it down and put up a crappy one so we can all be equal.

steveinaz

If you "choose" to be different from the prevailing society, you shouldn't expect everyone else to accomodate YOU. YOU need to accomodate them. Our country lately, with it's "PC" BS does just the opposite---'cause god forbid we offend someone. So instead we OFFEND the other 96 percentile, because that's "OK."

Yet another topic that has many Americans "boiling over."

tonyb

Thats why I'm all for empowering the parent to make the choice of what school to send his or her child to, along with their tax money to support that decision. But, according to some, like in Michigan, the school knows best how to raise a child, not the parent.

Again, it comes down to money, not what benefits the child.

Drenis

concealer404 wrote: »

Sorry, i read that backwards it seems.

I thought he was talking about removing FORCED prayer from schools.

As far as i'm concerned, if a kid wants to pray in public, be my guest, enjoy, knock yourself out. Force a kid to pray, or hold a school-wide prayer session, it'll be my boot up the principle's ****.

Carry on.

Almost as bad as making kids sing the anthem every morning or reciting "God Save The Queen"... *shakes head*

concealer404

My school didn't do either of those things.

I do so hope that doesn't make my entire graduating class "Unamerican."

Drenis

Some did both up here but we always HAD to stand for O Canada every morning. The kids who didn't stand were the religious ones.

tonyb

concealer404 wrote: »

My school didn't do either of those things.

I do so hope that doesn't make my entire graduating class "Unamerican."

So....doesn't make them unamerican, but on the flip side, whats wrong if they did do it ? Does that then make them too patriotic ?

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

So....doesn't make them unamerican, but on the flip side, whats wrong if they did do it ? Does that then make them too patriotic ?

I think Kids should not only have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but they should also do it with a fundamental understanding of what it means. Red Skelton comes to mind here, but I cannot post a link to the YouTube of it.

avelanchefan

turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice

How does this not constitute it not being a healthy lunch? Dairy...meat....fruit...juice. Unbelievable.

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I think Kids should not only have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but they should also do it with a fundamental understanding of what it means. Red Skelton comes to mind here, but I cannot post a link to the YouTube of it.

Ya know big guy, we posted that before. IMHO....the way Red Skelton delivered, and explained it, should be a staple in every school. Simply hit it out of the park.

sucks2beme

The pledge of allegiance was written by a Christian socialist.
Not exactly a right wing cause! It was modified a couple of times
and the phrase "one nation, under God" has stirred trouble both
with atheists and some religions. Sorry, the purpose of school is to
educate. That requires kids to shut up, sit down, and pay attention.
The pledge doesn't really make things better or worse.

quadzilla

steveinaz wrote: »

I think he's saying that this was starting point for Government to start sticking it's nose in deeper and deeper into the public school system. I would tend to agree.

This is an easy fix. All we need to do is look at how things were done in the 1950's, 60's and 70's....and whatever has changed---PUT IT BACK to what it was. Problem solved. You know, silly things like dress codes, discipline, core curriculum that mattered--that kind of thing.

Except this is ignoring an even bigger change, attributable to the economy. Specifically, starting in the '60s and 70's, most households transitions from one working parent and one stay at home parent with time to do things like meet with teachers, make sure little Johnny and Susie were doing their homework, etc., to a nation of latch-key kids and 2 parents exhausted from a day at work, and not very engaged with their kid's education because they thought it was the teacher's job to raise their kids. Well, the teachers with television for a baby sitter.

Study after study shows that, even at the lowest socio-economic levels, when parents are actively engaged in their children's education, those kids always do better than their peers who's parents take a hands off approach.

So if you want to point to a time when it all started to go south, point to the disengagement by parents from the education system.

The other side of that is that if so many parents didn't send little Susie to kindergarten with a coke and a ho-ho for lunch (or send them with nothing at all), these kinds of regulations wouldn't be needed. So damn the government for trying to make sure that kindergartners get at least one decent meal a day.

quadzilla

concealer404 wrote: »

The headline should be "Small Child Gets Confused, Buys Chicken Nuggets."

Unfortunately, that's not quite so glamorous or fun to argue about, is it?

Yeah, how do you expect certain people get their rage on without those sorts of headlines?