Giving your kids lunch will spoil them

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,779
Reaction score
14,777
A Waukesha, Wisconsin school board has decided to reject federal money for free school lunches. Why?

Karin Rajnicek, a school board member, said the free program made it easy for families to “become spoiled.” Darren Clark, assistant superintendent for business services, said there could be a “slow addiction” to the service.


Don’t “spoil” poor kids by giving them food. Starving them will make them tougher.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,531
Reaction score
9,289
A Waukesha, Wisconsin school board has decided to reject federal money for free school lunches. Why?




Don’t “spoil” poor kids by giving them food. Starving them will make them tougher.

And everyone knows that starving kids make by far the best students; stress and hunger focus the mind in a way that food security cannot.

Dear God.

In the UK, for the first time ever, the poor ate well, healthily and nutritiously, during the years of - and after - the Second World War on account of the comprehensive programme of rationing introduced by the Government, the effects of which (somewhat embarrassingly, such results were achieved as a result of strictly enforced government policy in time of war) were only fully realised in subsequent decades.

As a consequence of that policy in those years, health differentials - and stuff such as basic hunger - that derived from social class - whereby, historically, the well off had always been healthier, taller, lived longer, etc. - (and wartime rationing ensured that the poor had ready access to affordable, nourishing and healthy food, fresh fruit & food, eggs, orange juice, dairy produce) shrank in the decades immediately after the second world war, - the kids (especially from poor and working class backgrounds) who grew up in the 50s and 60s were possibly the best fed & healthiest ever - which is as strong an argument for government intervention in such matters as I have come across.
 
Last edited:

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Vaccinated
Posts
6,612
Reaction score
13,749
Location
Not HERE.
This should come as no surprise to anyone. It's been talked about for years. It's kind of the point for some. Especially those who are NOT the most vulnerable.

We can hear the spectacle of cruel laughter throughout the Trump era. There were the border-patrol agents cracking up at the crying immigrant children separated from their families, and the Trump adviser who delighted white supremacists when he mocked a child with Down syndrome who was separated from her mother. There were the police who laughed uproariously when the president encouraged them to abuse suspects, and the Fox News hosts mocking a survivor of the Pulse Nightclub massacre (and in the process inundating him with threats), the survivors of sexual assault protesting to Senator Jeff Flake, the women who said the president had sexually assaulted them, and the teen survivors of the Parkland school shooting. There was the president mocking Puerto Rican accents shortly after thousands were killed and tens of thousands displaced by Hurricane Maria, the black athletes protesting unjustified killings by the police, the women of the #MeToo movement who have come forward with stories of sexual abuse, and the disabled reporter whose crime was reporting on Trump truthfully. It is not just that the perpetrators of this cruelty enjoy it; it is that they enjoy it with one another. Their shared laughter at the suffering of others is an adhesive that binds them to one another, and to Trump.

Serwer’s answer is complicated but worth pondering. For him, individual cruelty isn’t really the problem. Sure, people can be cruel, but people can be lots of things, and a healthy society is more than capable of channeling our vices. Serwer’s argument is that the structure of American politics itself is cruel.

While Serwer recognizes that cruelty, over time, has been a bipartisan feature of American politics, he believes it’s now central to the Republican Party. This is not the same as saying individual Republicans are cruel; the point is that the GOP, as a matter of strategy, is incentivizing cruelty.

I spoke to Serwer for an episode of Vox Conversations. We discussed the role of cruelty in American life as well as some of the challenges of making these sorts of distinctions. We also talk about why cruelty is so effective as a mobilizing device for the GOP at this moment, and why, no matter how hard we try, we’ll never get rid of it.

Unfortunately it's NOT an isolated incident, it's just that's so cartoonishly evil & petty it grabs attention. It's been referred to since the last administration though that cruelty to others is an almost bonding experience that maintains the us Vs them mentality that a side of the political spectrum thrives on.

“Essentially we’re going back to the pre-COVID times," Como said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to extend the Seamless Summer Option during the pandemic to offer free meals year-round has allowed for more COVID-safe practices by eliminating the need to collect payments and allowing meals to be served more easily in classrooms or outside.

The decision also allowed students to be fed regardless of their ability to pay, qualify, convince their parents to fill out forms, or withstand stigma associated with qualifying. Sherrie Tussler, executive director of Hunger Task Force, said the program is vital for ensuring access to food.

In the name of "returning to normal" is an opportunity to pander a little cruelty when others won't. Perhaps it'll inspire others to try harder, or more likely leave because who really likes folks who can't feed their kids? What do they bring to the table so to speak? As if the previous normal was a good thing in the first place, and doing a little bit NOW to help others is suddenly a bad thing. It's maintaining that mantra of "If I could do it, so can...", all the while always ignoring the circumstances that may have allowed one to do something that may not have been afforded others. So it becomes a rallying cry for those who could, to unite around those others that couldn't.

It's intentional.

It's with purpose.
 

Herdfan

Resident Redneck
Vaccinated
Posts
3,240
Reaction score
2,476
A Waukesha, Wisconsin school board has decided to reject federal money for free school lunches. Why?

My daughter's school decided to forgo the federal money because they didn't want to have to comply with all the requirements of Michelle Obama's healthy lunch program. But it is also one of the wealthier districts in the state and last I heard was they now offer free lunches to every student, so there is no stigma for the "free lunch" kids.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,417
Reaction score
4,395
Location
The Misty Mountains
A Waukesha, Wisconsin school board has decided to reject federal money for free school lunches. Why?




Don’t “spoil” poor kids by giving them food. Starving them will make them tougher.
Is there some kind of phantom virus spreading in this country for 4 decades that is evolving Republicans/conservatives into inhumane monsters? 👹
 
Top Bottom