The threat is stronger than the execution, installment #437

A Pennsylvania school district is warning that children could end up in foster care if their parents do not pay overdue school lunch bills. The letters sent recently to about 1,000 parents in Wyoming Valley West School District have led to complaints from parents and a stern rebuke from Luzerne County child welfare authorities.

The district says that it is trying to collect more than $20,000, and that other methods to get parents to pay have not been successful. Four parents owe at least $450 apiece.

And worse yet:

The district’s federal programs director, Joseph Muth, told WNEP-TV the district had considered serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to students with delinquent accounts but received legal advice warning against it.

When I was a kid, we considered peanut butter and jelly sandwiches a privilege.

Here is the full story, via Garance Franke-Ruta.

Comments

Can’t wait to turn in my parents; is there a number I should call? My brothers and I were forced to eat PB&J almost everyday all the way through grade school.

Yeah! Back in my day we were *lucky* to grow up malnourished, carboloading ourselves into early onset diabetes and sugar addictions!

If we want to build a truly successful society we need to ignore common sense and abuse our children rather than spending ludicrously meager sums ensuring the generation thats going to run society in 30 years grows up properly fed in the wealthiest nation on earth!

I mean, I ate PB and J in grade school all the time too just like my Dad and his dad. And you know what? They used to drink and drive in high school all the time too and they turned out just fine. We should bring that back too!

So peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are child abuse now? What if we use no sugar added peanut butter and natural (or 0 sugar) jam?

Condensed fruit of any form is pretty nasty for your insulin system. And good luck getting schools to pony up for "real" PB sans palm oil. Hell I even have a hard time finding it in the supermarket even with 35 different brands to browse through.

Diabetes is genetic and not caused by eating carbs or sugar. If you do not have diabetes no amount of consumed sugar or carbs can give it to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance

> Obesity is the main trigger for developing insulin resistance, together with other lifestyle factors such as being inactive.

It's the Obesity and not the sugar.

Because sugar doesn't cause obesity.

Exactly! Sugar does not cause obesity.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Either your Russia is leaking or you seriously have not heard of type II diabetes?

Is diabetes caused by eating sugar?

A diet high in calories from any source (including sugar) contributes to weight gain and weight gain increases your risk for type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease. Type 2 diabetes is not caused by sugar, but by genetics and lifestyle factors.

You are believing the statistical hype. Has it ever occurred to you that the exact opposite is true; i.e. that having diabetes (undiagnosed or diagnosed) contributes to the likelihood that you will be obese??? Well that is the fact not the myth you are spreading.
Diabetes is genetic. You are born with it. It may not be serious enough when you are young for you to discover it or have it diagnosed but as you age and your habits change it becomes more likely that your diabetes will be diagnosed. This is why many people believe that the "caught" diabetes and then search for the cause and of course the whipping boy of diet and lifestyle is handy. Probably if you have diabetes your parents or other close relatives have it. It is a simple result of the lottery draw at conception; what genes you inherit. You do not "catch" diabetes from candy bars.

Excess free fatty acids in the bloodstream leads to insulin resistance.

Excess free fatty acids are present in the bloodstream because people eat shitty food and too much sugar.

Eating too much sugar by itself has the secondary effect of overworking the pancreatic beta cells, which die off and/or stop producing insulin.

So sugar is a double-edged sword that helps cause diabetes.

Sure, there is a genetic component involved (when is there not?) but sugar intake has been directly linked to both insulin resistance and decreased beta cell function.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3934755/

IF what you claim were true than most people in the West would have diabetes. But in a stunning statistical refutation of your theory; not only has the rate of diabetes stayed the same for the last 100 plus years but the genetic groups most at risk of diabetes are from non-Western cultures. Diabetes is genetic, you catch it from your parents not from sugar.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Has it ever occurred to you that the exact opposite is true

No but I would hope that it has occurred to the folks at the American Diabetes Association and been examined at least a little.
So far what is the evidence for that?

@OneGuy
Actually I'm on the side of sugar NOT causing diabetes like the American Diabetes Association says in my quote.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Lifestyle factors" like eating too much sugar.

Healthy at any size, right?

I feel bad for obese people. I mean truly obese not simply BMI over 30. It is likely in most cases genetic.

But re. your "Healthy at any size, right?" comment. Look up the "obesity paradox".

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

+1

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Well if you feed a PBJ sandwich to a child with a peanut allergy and they die I would think that will cause "legal issues".

These days they generally now give sunflower butter for that reason.

Respond

Add Comment

Yeah, I'm sure the cafeteria ladies will shove it down the kid's throat and take away his epipen for good measure.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Is healthy food really the alternative they have in this case? Or is it Gov certified food. Big difference.

Read it again. What they said was that these parents were sending their children to school with no breakfast, no lunch and no money to buy lunch leaving their children unfed. For that the parents SHOULD be turned in to child welfare authorities.

"For that the parents SHOULD be turned in to child welfare authorities"

That's a drastic over reaction. I thing that sending officials to visit the parents first and then setting up expected results and follow up phone calls would be a much better first step.

Granted, that would mean the Social workers have to actually work a full case load. And if the social workers in PA are similar to other states then that could present a problem.

Respond

Add Comment

"Turning in" someone to the welfare authorities can simply mean just that: Referring them to help.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

But, you would agree that any parent who fails to feed their child is in fact derelict in their duty to that child. I cannot imagine not feeding my children. What kind of parent would do that???

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

take the peanutbutter sandwich

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

'When I was a kid, we considered peanut butter and jelly sandwiches a privilege.'

But at least it was on an artisanally baked baguette, right?

(And seriously, only a freshly made peanut butter and jelly sandwich is edible - the ones sitting around for hours are awful.)

Respond

Add Comment

School lunches are free for families with income lower than 130% of poverty level.

So, people in debt could be: i) very poor but has not submitted proof of income to the school, ii) poor but not poor enough to qualify for assistance, iii) good income but simply does not honor debts.

To solve the first the school can be more helpful in guiding parents through bureaucracy. If the school managers went out of their way to threaten parents, they can also go out of their way to be actually helpful.

The second case is tricky. The third case, just call a debt collection agency.

I suspect that if you were to look into each case you would find that the parent(s) had expensive tattoos, smart phones, smoked, drank and very likely consumed drugs. IMHO without regard to their income status any of these factors should disqualify them from public assistance. If they are wasting their money and thus can't afford to take care of themselves or their family THEN they should suffer the consequences.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I was born in the mid 1960s, and we did not consider PB&Js a „privilege” any more than Oscar Meyer bologna or Wonder Bread was a privilege. Going to McDonalds - that was a privilege.

I'm a contemporary of the moderators (and I grew up in a less affluent part of the country). I cannot imagine anyone thinking it was a privilege to be served peanut-butter-and-jelly or tuna fish. (Bar that it had a moderate chance of being palatable, unlike the standard fare of school cafeteria food of that era, which ran to a concoction we all called 'gravy train').

Respond

Add Comment

Bologna on white sandwiches are literally standard jail/holding cell fare.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

' Going to McDonalds - that was a privilege.'

And going behind the counter as part of a Cub Scout tour was like making a pilgrimage.

(And really, anyone who remembers peanut butter and jelly sandwiches would have an extremely hard time considering them a privilege at any level. Fluffernutters, on the other hand ... .)

We went to McDonalds about once a month in the 70’s.....very big deal

Oh definitely, particularly when you think of the earlier 70s, before McDonald's even had things like chicken nuggets or ice cream sundaes/cones, much less the variety found today. I have memories of it being a big deal with they has a special milk shake flavor. Don't remember this ad though - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOMws3pIf14

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I did a Cub Scout tour of a McDonalds, I still remember being surprised how little cooking happened there: the hot apple pies were frozen, they looked like pieces of white plaster before they were fried (I think they're baked now?). The squares of fish for the fish sandwiches looked scarcely more food-like.

I didn't have an anti-fast food mentality but it did strike me as something more akin to a factory than a restaurant.

Absolutely, but this was the age of Tang and those disappointing astronaut food stick things. Ah, here is a link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Food_Sticks

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I was an air-eater, I think, but insofar as I liked any food, I liked the little hamburger with mustard and one or two thin pickles, and the pre-Crisco-ban fries, and the toy when that was introduced. But the playground - the other children - was the real draw, for one who was functionally an only child, in a suburban atmosphere where they thought people would not be wanting parks. (And whose mother, in any case, would not have been inclined to sit in a park for my sake even had there been one to drive to.)

I think this ranking of playground and distant second, food, was true for my actual-only child as well. Once when he was about five we were encamped at the playground of the local McD's, and it so happened that "Daddy" came through the drive-through behind the fence. Child and I instinctively turned to each other with a stunned, "My God" look.

We called to him but he didn't hear us. Very intent on his fish sandwich.

In those several sentences, we glimpse a family history that sounds like it was rather turbulent. I'm reminded of Hemingway's suggested very short story consisting of six words: "For sale. Baby shoes. Never used."

Well ... that wasn't a dig at Mother, about the park. She loved us all, and equally. She was just so busy. Women of course had more to do then, less time to sit and admire their children.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I didn't know what privilege meant, so I looked it up:

"A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."

So, who was it that was being denied the advantage of peanut and jelly sandwiches? Was it poor people? A racial group? Perhaps those who can't tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin?

*Real Americans* never need this new fangled fancy *food* to get by each day. If i got to lick a bubble wrapper, i considered it a goddammned privilege! Kids these days thinking they should just get food HANDED to them. Get a job.

This shit is ridiculous. These people are insane. Children need proper nutrition to grow up. Anyone calling proper nutrition for children in school a privilege is a heartless piece of shit. In America? Youre being a piece of shit on purpose for the lulz.

It's always hilarious to see how a Left winger believes people from outside of their bubble talk.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

School lunch is a starter. In the end you are L, where they provide nursery services and overdose emergency treatment The kids can get drugged and pregnant, schools hire people in white coats. More nurses was one of the priority items in the L:AUSD strike.

Respond

Add Comment

Context: The school district is a suburban (Wilkes-Barre) district located in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is predominantly white (90%) with a small black population (4%). The median household income is a little over $46,000 (about 80% of the median household income in Pennsylvania), with about 14% of the population below the poverty line (as compared to 13% in Pennsylvania). The total debt outstanding ($20,000) seems a paltry sum, especially when compared to the trillions being added to the national debt as the result of the Trump tax cut, a debt that will never be repaid. Maybe those who benefited from the Trump tax cut should have to eat PB&J.

Federal tax revenue will be a record high this year, after the Trump tax cut. Next year is projected to be even higher.

The increased debt is not due to the tax cut.

'The increased debt is not due to the tax cut.'

Um, so reducing taxes not only does not increase, it likely reduces the deficit. Tell us another laffer.

Maybe you could ask to get whatever you spent on education refunded. It didn't help.

Revenues are up. Spending is up more.

'Maybe you could ask to get whatever you spent on education refunded.'

Laffer Curve - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve No need to pay any money to get educated reading wikipedia, but it does appear that I overestimated the amusement factor of using 'laffer' as a pun that should have been easily identified at a putative economics web site.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I benefited from a 100 basis-point Trump tax increase b/c it limited my (huge) NY state and local tax deductions. The tax cut isn't the national debt problem. Spending rises by two- or three-times tax receipts increases.

I still eat PB&J - it has no meat; but racist, white bread is a no-no.

Every time I think of President Trump, I give thanks to my God. [See Philippians 1:3)

Your god sucks.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

What's the legal connection between school lunches and foster care?

I think this is the same story as another I read. The parents are sending the kids to school without a lunch so the school feeds them, and bills the parents. The threat is to send them to foster for neglecting the kids by not feeding them.

Respond

Add Comment

Jailing the parents so that the children need to be taken into custody comes to mind. The sort of thing which actually seems conceivable in Trump's America, sadly enough.

otoh -perhaps you contracted a postmodern cultural bias
in America most poor people pay their bills& feed their kids!
not feeding a kid adequately in the u.s.a is not a perfect metric for income!
it is a fair to middlin marker/metric for neglect/abuse
& a logical metric
for a look -look by social services

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

They should threaten to

Put the kids in cages.

Or at least ship them back to where they come from.

For once, we agree. You commies never think about from whence will come the MONEY. Illegals' illegal kids are murdering each other and bankrupting school districts all over the USA.

Send them back.

'For once, we agree. '

No, we really don't, since you missed the sarcasm involved in saying that American citizens need to be shipped back to where they come from. Just like you missed the sarcasm involved in suggesting that American children should be put in cages because their parents have not been paid the proper amount to a school district.

Welcome to the age of Trump.

I think it was irony, not sarcasm, but, actually, it was something else but first let me explain the difference between irony and sarcasm:

"A father and daughter were deep in discussion over breakfast at a diner. “That’s not irony, that’s sarcasm,” the father said of something the daughter had pointed out. “No,” she answered. “Irony is to point out the absurdity of something. Sarcasm is meant to wound. That’s the difference.” https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/language_corner_062314.php
But, it could be sarcastic. Debatable.

But, that's not the reason I did this poem.

It has to do with cognitive dissonance. A Trump follower would be OK with threatening to put 6 year olds in cages -- if it was accompanied by an illegal alien. It's OK, because Trump did it; but, if it was someone else who did it and to an American, it's cruel and inhuman.

So, how do you point out the absurdity...you use irony, or is it sarcasm, and flip the story the other way so that that you make the person uncomfortable.

Here is a good video on cognitive dissonance and the Trump send them back to where they came from story...how non-racist Trump supporters searched for ways to avoid the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. The video also explains how you can make people realize that they should challenge the base proposition.

Look for the Vohs discussion on the site:
https://behavioralgrooves.com It's a behavioral econ podcast site.

By the way, I want to thank everyone, especially Dick, for the contribution to the discussion.

Putting children in cages is neither irony or sarcastic, it is un-American.

Well, it used to be.

Tell that to the scum bags (30% not related) that dragged them across the Rio Grande, traitor.

Bringing in millions of criminals to destroy America and our way of life is un-American.

That which can't be sustained will ultimately crash.

You ought to know enough German to get this. Das Dicke ende kommt noch.

I notice that you end your name with a c and the other Dick ends with an r.. Is this Is it Butcher or Butcherc. Are you the same person.

If you are a different person capturing a name, I would ask Tyler to remove your post as Butcherc. It is unfair to Butcher and deceptive.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yes, well apparently it is Central American, not American, because the Central Americans are putting them in the cages by illegally bringing them into this country. What else can we do? Put them in foster homes? That sounds even worse. Why can't they just not sneak the kids into the country? I'm genuinely curious, what do other countries do in this situation? It has to be the same thing, right?

They probably do the humane thing and keep the families together rather than separating children from parents.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

We send them back everyday. On buses, to their homes. Thats how it works.

You must be one of those elite members of Trump's "Special" Forces. Id like to know where exactly you want to send the *white* kids though? I can certainly imagine where you'd send the brown ones.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE !

President Harry S. Truman began the 'national school lunch program' in 1946 as a measure of national security.

He did so after reading a study that revealed many young men had been rejected from the World War II draft due to medical conditions caused by childhood malnutrition.

(parents absolutely must breed & feed children for future military service; government schools will handle the necessary mental indoctrination)

Truth. I recently re-read (100th WWI end anniversary) Laurence Stallings' (he lost a leg in the war) excellent (1960's) book, The Doughboys. In it he wrote that the WWI doughboy was physically superior to many WWII soldiers due to varying degrees of Great Depression (GD) malnutrition. Of course, FDR's "reformist" policies had lengthened by years the GD.

That being said, public schools are government-funded child abuse.

"Of course, FDR's "reformist" policies had lengthened by years the GD."
I see. By Roosevelt's election, it had only lasted Hoover's entire term. Evidently, Republicans had a great plan to deal with it.

Respond

Add Comment

Of course, FDR's "reformist" policies had lengthened by years the GD.

Nothing of the sort happened except in the imagination of people who fancy Amity Shlaes is an economist. Over the period running from 1933 to 1939, real per capita income returned to 1929 levels. By 1941, real per capita income had reached a level coincident with long-term trend lines. The mean annual growth rate of real income per capita over the period running from 1933 to 1941 was 7.7% per year.

Now, it's conceivable that had some body of officials implemented optimal policy during those years, the economy would have grown faster. Guess what? When policy is designed and implemented by human beings, the results are never optimal. The optimum can only be discerned retrospectively. The most consequential mistakes made were in re monetary policy during 1937 and 1938, which induced a sharp contraction in business activity. Those errors had nothing to do with the Democratic Party's social-democratic measures (whether you think such measures advisable or not).

" Over the period running from 1933 to 1939, real per capita income returned to 1929 levels."

That's supposed to be good?

Yes, and for obvious reasons. North America and the Southern Cone of South America suffered a far more violent economic contraction during the period running from 1929 to 1932/33 than did any European country. In our case, per capita income in real terms declined by 30%. Just getting back to baseline required an economic expansion of > 40%.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

When you were a kid, peanut allergies weren't so prevalent.

Which is a fascinating point, isn't it? Lots of allergies seem to have arisen in the last generation or so, in a way that leads one to suspect that the measurement of such things may be a bit suspect. (Sadly, one assumes the number of very small children choking to death on peanuts has remained fairly constant, however.)

You didn't know? The advice not to expose your child to peanuts until age 2 dramatically increased the rate of peanut allergies. The new recommendation is to expose them by 6 months. Of course there could be some environmental issue as well, but that's a big and well known one.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Some folks don't pay for lunch while others don't pay for oil: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/22/kochland-excerpt-senate-investigation-oil-theft-native-american-tribes-227412

Respond

Add Comment

Being poor in America means that you can owe less than $500 and the government will threaten to take away your kids.

No, a useless microbe in the superintendent of schools office can threaten to grass you up to child protective. The welfare department in that county was emphatic in response to this Muth guy: "this department never has and never will remove a child from the home over unpaid bills".

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This to me is one of the most morally unambiguous policy questions there is: give the kids food. They're kids. They're legally required to be there. At least keep them alive while they're there. The price of school lunches is extremely small compared to many other costs of public education. Take it out of the budget for textbooks, field trips, administrative salaries, whatever. Giving the kids nutritious food and not threatening them with debt collection or child service will do more for their long-term cognitive development than whatever you're cutting the budget of to pay for it.

I agree. This is one of the most offensive posts I have read on this generally offensive site. Snarky comments about your childhood in the face of the hunger of others are just the lowest of the low.

Expenditure on food consumed at home accounts for about 6% of total personal income in this country. The social work lobby invented the term 'food insecure' because there are actually very few people who have more meal times than meals and many of those who do are addicts or living with addicts. We've reached an age where obesity is inversely correlated with income.

If you're concerned about the level of real income some households with children have, you can act to improve it with income tax rebates (which they will deploy according to their preference structure). There's no good reason to provide anyone with meals outside of shelters and community food cupboards maintained for vagrants. There's no reason to provide them with food coupons or debit cards. In a sensible world, schools would have a set of large communal refrigerators and kids would come to work with lunches prepared at home.

...and many of those who do are addicts or living with addicts.

Damn those drug addicts, they should starve!

Not to mention those stupid, stupid kids who couldn't even pick the right parents!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

They're legally required to be there and forced to buy from only one vendor. Perhaps that will make the libertarian heart beat a little.

1. They are not "forced" to buy anything. They could bring a brown bag. If their parent(s) accepted responsibility,

2. Yes, threatening Child Protective Services is over-the-top. BUT once it becomes apparent that free lunches will be dispensed to any child who wants one, those who are now paying will surely feel like chumps for paying when others are not. The logical outcome of "free lunch" plus no collections is that everyone will get a free lunch (for only a fool would pay for what everyone else is getting for free).

3. The reason why the children of parents to provide neither lunch nor pay the school for lunch do not receive PB&J (or something more suitable in this Age of Allergies) is because it is said it would "shame" these children to be served something less desirable to eat than those who pay are receiving (even if it may be equal or superior in nutritive value).

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

He doesn't need me to explain his blog posts for him, but one must search for a deeper meaning to Cowen's blog posts than the literal meaning and the standard "your an idiot" post one is accustomed to on the internet. I wouldn't waste so much of my time reading this blog if it were easy.

Respond

Add Comment

They are giving the kids the food, so what is your comment for?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Maybe someone will call their bluff a la "Ransom of Red Chief".

Let's see how many folks can recognize that one without Googling (or DuckDuckGoing)!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

As a kid I ate way too many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I was a plain eater until I hit my growth spurt. So I would have been down with this, though it was absolutely vital to my young self that the jelly was grape.

In terms of social standards today, I think a Basic Lunch is fine for kids without money. I don't support harsh punishments for children of poor, or even lazy parents.

Respond

Add Comment

It's sad this story has become a referendum on peanut butter rather than the growing attitude that "X is a human right, so I shouldn't have to pay for X, because I'm marginalized, underserved or just don't feel like it."

Skip the jelly, by the way, and make a BLT with peanut butter instead of mayo. A PBLT. Best sandwich around even without the bacon.

Respond

Add Comment

Promote multi-culturalism: abolish public education.

Yeah, what good has it done you.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Most of the outrage in this post does not mention that in many districts, parents are required to fill out income forms each year when kids enroll. If a parent's income is too low, then the kid gets a free or reduced price lunch. When I grew up, I know many kids whose parents were wealthier than mine, whose kids wore more expensive clothes, etc who would under-report their income and get free lunches. My parents did not do that, and they taught me an important lesson in honesty and integrity.

I have not looked at this particular case, but it is worth *first* investigating whether the parents are either poor people who didn't fill out the form correctly, or deadbeats, and *then* jumping on the appropriate emotional bandwagon.

I did, comment #6 ;)

Respond

Add Comment

I respectfully suggest that even children of deadbeats don't deserve to be either shamed or half-starved.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

By the way, for those unfamiliar with the origin of the phrase in chess circles,

Wikipedia -- " Nimzowitsch was annoyed by his opponents' smoking. A popular, but probably apocryphal, story is that once when an opponent laid an unlit cigar on the table, he complained to the tournament arbiters, "He is threatening to smoke, and as an old player you must know that the threat is stronger than the execution." "

(Probably early in the 20th century.)

(A potential threat can be more mentally distracting and disrupting than the actual execution.)

Respond

Add Comment

To be fair, the school office can screw up too. I was getting e-mails from a school a thousand miles away -- including you owe us lunch money, plus constant alerts for lockdowns, cafeteria fires etc -- because some parent there had a similar name.

Respond

Add Comment

The cult of "we have to give the kids a hot meal" is a ludicrous but now thoroughly well-established part of K-12 meal policy.

Respond

Add Comment

Why are these kids in school?
Why are they not working in the many re-opened coal mines thanks to stable genius policies of The Dumpster®?
They should be working for their food.

Respond

Add Comment

I grew up the son of an Italian mother in a school with mostly the children and grand children of Italian immigrants and if your lunch bag did not have some oil on it from the meatball/pepper/sausage sandwich you were missing out.

In my experience the food served in schools cafeterias is really, really bad, far worse that peanut-butter and jelly. I often would wonder how do they make it so bad are they trying to make it bad?

One more thing, good food is cheap enough I see no reason to not give any child a free lunch but government employees at that level seem incapable of making anything that tastes good. Maybe they could buy trail mix and allow the children to eat that.

Been there, done that. Or Jamie Oliver has. On his TV show he went to Huntington, WV (the state with the highest obesity rates and some of the worst health statistics in the US) and vowed to reform the meals at the public schools serving meals that were healthier and better tasting.

The trouble is that the kids didn't like his meals. And in the years since those episodes were televised, it turns out that the seeming villain, the schools' food director Rhonda McCoy, was doing a better job than Jamie Oliver had portrayed.
https://www.thelunchtray.com/jamie-oliver-slammed-huntington-west-virginias-school-food-heres-real-story/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Once again, Government creates more problems than it solves.

Respond

Add Comment

Who's says there is no such thing as a free lunch? The welfare state at work... I lived on PBJ...

Respond

Add Comment

-we reckon there was a case in the literature where nekked barnie sanders was in the childrens house stealing their food!
-we also reckon the socioliogists did a study that unintentionally revealed the most regularly underfed kids in the school and turned it into a sandwich narrative!

Respond

Add Comment

Interesting that some found the post offensive. I found it offensive years ago when the school district pivoted from providing breakfast and lunch to nearly all comers during the school year, to providing the same throughout the summer, at what they termed "feeding sites." Not so much because of the image of the kids as herd animals, but more because their parents were, in the pre-emptive judgment of district officials, total reprobates not competent to provide a peanut butter sandwich with WIC-supplied peanut butter and bread (true, jelly is not on the list). Or: we don't wish for them to become so minimally competent ...

I guess it hinges on what you're most keenly sensitive to.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment