Article

2010-10-20 Home Front: Politix

RANT: Why we have to turn the rascals out, reason #MDCCLXXIII

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2010-10-20 11:38|| || Front Page|| [11139 views ] Top

#1 Heck, might as well let them stay overnight at that point. Give'm a cot, show an educational movie, and a nice uniform to wear the next day. They could see their parents on the weekends, if the paperwork is in order of course.

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-10-20 12:02|| 2010-10-20 12:02|| Front Page Top

#2 Why even bother with parents at this point, DC? Just seize the kids when they get to be school age and you can churn out perfect little drones for your socialist machine.

I'm not being sarcastic either.

Posted by DarthVader 2010-10-20 12:15|| 2010-10-20 12:15|| Front Page Top

#3 I remember reading an article or two in the 80s about schools which were trying to cope with large numbers of students from terribly dysfunctional, improvident families, where the school administrator (IIRC, a very resourceful and creative woman) who just flat-out said that for many of her students the best hope for becoming functional and well-adjusted adults was for her school to become a kind of boarding school. Their family life was awful to non-existent; school was the only kind of stability for them, and their teachers about the only admirable role-models. I have to say, it might not be that bad an idea, especially if it interrupts a cycle of dysfunction.

Posted by Sgt.Mom 2010-10-20 12:28|| http://www.celiahayes.com 2010-10-20 12:28|| Front Page Top

#4 Apparently the big push is now on to increase the reimbursement for free school breakfasts and lunches to a dollar more per meal. I just saw it on the news a couple of weeks ago. The spiel was to get rid of the awful pizza kids had to eat and instead have a healthy, sit-down type of meal.

While it is a nice idea, all I could think of was the million of kids on two free school meals a day costing an extra dollar each meal, so two dollars extra per kid per day. So millions more in expense every single day. It must be nice to have direct access to someone else's pocketbook.

Posted by Black Charlie Chinemble5313 2010-10-20 12:38|| 2010-10-20 12:38|| Front Page Top

#5 they should ask sheriff Joe Arpaio what he does to keep food costs down and help his inmates lose weight..."help keep them on task."

Posted by Broadhead6 2010-10-20 14:15|| 2010-10-20 14:15|| Front Page Top

#6 What Sgt. Mom said. Back when I was one of those frighteningly involved PTA moms at the elementary school, I had two little kindergarteners to tutor in reading readiness to catch them up with the rest of the class -- letters, numbers, colours, that kind of thing. One didn't know he had a last name, his father turned out to be illiterate; the other could name his last half dozen "uncles", and had cheesy popcorn for breakfast if he got anything to eat at all. For both of them I stopped in at the cafeteria to get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich before we started, or they'd have trouble concentrating. for the second boy this was a revelation -- he'd never eaten anything like that before.

Saying that their parents should be taking care of this is all very well, except that their parents simply don't, even when they have the resources. That's the difference between not having enough money and actually being poor, in my opinion. If one doesn't know how and refuses to learn, the income doesn't matter; if one knows how, one can stretch a very limited income, so long as there are no catastrophes.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-10-20 15:45|| 2010-10-20 15:45|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm really torn on this one. One the one hand, even though we didn't have much we did have breakfast before school (Cream of Wheat and Oatmeal in the cold months, Corn Flakes in the warm months). Lunch at school was 25 cents but Mom fixed us something to take and we paid a nickel for milk. Nowdays prices are much higher. We went to a small, country school and there were no kids who didn't eat lunch or breakfast. This was rural Alabama in the 50's and 60's. In these highly populated urban areas nowdays there are thousands of kids who don't get the right attention at home.I am not opposed to helping those kids but there is a line between education and indoctrination that must not be crossed. Teach, don't indoctrinate.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-10-20 15:55|| 2010-10-20 15:55|| Front Page Top

#8 One more way to make people's lives easy enough that they decide to ride in the wagon rather than pull it. One more way to disintegrate the family as the glue of society. One more way to buy votes.

Posted by gorb 2010-10-20 16:24|| 2010-10-20 16:24|| Front Page Top

#9 I'd like one of the polling organizations to run a single-question public opinion survey:

"Should the government pay for everything?"

I bet you'd get over 10% agreement. You might get 30%.

Posted by Matt 2010-10-20 17:18|| 2010-10-20 17:18|| Front Page Top

#10 "I stopped in at the cafeteria to get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich"

Nothing wrong with peanut butter and jelly, or cheese, or even bologna, tw.

But "salmon salad, a whole grain roll, orange juice, one percent milk and a corn and pepper relish"?

D.C. wants to feed these kids better than I (or quite a few others) am fed - and use my tax dollers to do it. >:-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-10-20 17:50|| 2010-10-20 17:50|| Front Page Top

#11 D.C. wants to feed these kids better than I (or quite a few others) am fed - and use my tax dollers to do it. >:-(

That depends on what that menu really means, Barbara. Watch the FoxNews video -- these kids aren't eating off the fat of the land. That was a tuna-salad sandwich made with salmon on a roll instead of bread slices.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-10-20 18:37|| 2010-10-20 18:37|| Front Page Top

#12 I open up the CafeTORIUM at 6 a.m...... after September 1. I don't like the guys sitting out in the dark. To paraphrase: you go to the skool with the kids you have, not the kids you want.

Dr. White, the average age of the parent(s) of our students is under 23. We do what we can. If that requires 3 meals a day then I am all in favor of it. Perhaps you are under the impression that cutting school meals will encourage the parent, guardian or what-have-you to pack a fine lunch and cook a good wholesome AMERICAN-BREAKFAST-JUST-LIKE-I-HAD, then you are incorrect.

I frankly (F-150) think boarding schools may be a solution.

Posted by Goldies Every Damn Where 2010-10-20 19:07|| 2010-10-20 19:07|| Front Page Top

#13 The problem is where this leads. On the face of it it is not so bad now....BUT...let's get the NEA & SEIU involved and pretty soon ALL kids will "have" to be offered 3 course gourmet meals and their parents won't be allowed a veto even if they want to. This is the kind of "do gooderism" that can rapidly devolve into the situation found in Paleostinian camps where multiple generations are sucking on the UN tit.

How about we put in some mandatory parenting classes for any parent whose kid isn't properly nourished. Food isn't that expensive and with food-stamps and proper knowledge we can get the responsibility back where it belongs.

If not then there is the bording school approach.

Posted by Alan Cramer 2010-10-20 19:16|| 2010-10-20 19:16|| Front Page Top

#14 Mr. Cramer raises a good point. While I don't have an issue with this idea going where it is specifically needed, it needs to be offered to those who need it most and only those kids. But if these kids have parents who are unable or unwilling to deliver adequat care for their children, shouldn't social services take those kids away or at least do an upclose assessment of the parents?

Posted by remoteman 2010-10-20 19:26|| 2010-10-20 19:26|| Front Page Top

#15 "Shouldn't social services take those kids away or at least do an upclose assessment of the parents?"

Yea. Agreed one thousand percent. Excuse me fiscal conservatives, I am one of you and do not like big government, excepting a line drawn against child abuse. Malnourishment is abuse. I do not want the next generation punished for the sins of the father or mother. /Rant off

Posted by PrivateEye 2010-10-20 19:55|| 2010-10-20 19:55|| Front Page Top

#16 Have you seen Social Services? There's a reason they do everything they can to keep the families together instead of moving children into the system.

"Boarding school" means what in the olden days was referred to as the orphanage. Back in the day, as I understand it, most of the residents had at least one living parent... who dropped the children off for someone else to care for because he/she couldn't or wouldn't. Kind of like the children Mr. Goldies Everywhere feeds in the dark of the morning.

For some of those parents, parenting and cooking classes -- hell, just call them "life skills" classes and be done with it -- will help. But for a lot of them, all one can do is give the children a chance to move into the working class when they're old enough. After all, the ones whose parents know how to manage limited resources already had some sort of nutritious breakfast and will get some sort of nutritious dinner, just as we all did.

Mr. Goldies Everywhere, thank you for the care you give the students in your hands. I've no doubt that most of them properly appreciate it.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-10-20 20:42|| 2010-10-20 20:42|| Front Page Top

#17 I think breaking apart extremely dysfunctional families and giving children a chance in a foster home is preferable, so while social services may try to keep families together this is often the *worse* thing.
Two members of my family were orphaned, because they escaped Germany with whatever relative was living (no parents), and more recently another friend of mine was in foster care and liked his foster mother much more than his biological parents. WHY? Because his father was a murderer in prison and his mother is a druggie. Also, another relative of mine is a regular parent AND a foster parent that saved a young sweet girl from being gang raped in a crack house.
Social services tries to keep families together that long ago fell apart in a lot of cases Im afraid. I believe a lost child might be less lost in foster care, getting meals, and under the supervised care of foster parents, then stuck in a home of abuse, drugs, murder or incest. Sorry, social services should be looking at homes that can't scrape together meals.

Posted by PrivateEye 2010-10-20 20:55|| 2010-10-20 20:55|| Front Page Top

#18 Compare wid WAFF > THE "PERFECT STORM" THAT THREATENS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY | THE TOP 1/10TH OF ONE PERCENT [1.0%] OF AMERICANS NOW EARN AS MUCH AS THE BOTTOM 120.0MILYUHN OF US.

* ARTIC = Amers are covertly + steadily losing their Freedoms-Rights + American-style Democracy to Elitist PLUTOCRACY.

------------

Also from WAFF > ELEVEN FREEDOMS THAT DRUNKS, SLACKERS, PROSTITUTES, + PIRATES PIONEERED WHICH THE FOUNDING FATHERS OPPOSED | WHAT THE US FOUNDING FATHERS CALLED/TERMED AS CORRUPTION, DEPRAVITY, VENALITY, + VICE [etc.] MANY OF US TODAY WOULD CALL "FREEDOM" [+ Natural Rights].

D *** NG IT, SUPPORT YOUR INNER, LOCAL UNDERWORLD CRIME LORD + BAD BOYZ-GIRLZ - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO!

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-10-20 21:21|| 2010-10-20 21:21|| Front Page Top

#19 This reminds me of Hamas, who, after destroying their society from the inside, get kudos for providing social services.

While palliative care is nessary, as stated by several on this thread, we also need to address the policies that have resulted in disfunctional families. But that won't happen with the current rulers, because destroying the family is a feature, no a bug. Get the kids early and indoctrinate them so they can "stay on task". (Real 4th graders don't talk like that, you know.)

We've got to take our country back from the "progressives" who are replacing our traditional American local institutions with a bloated Federal nanny state. Vote them all out.

Posted by KBK 2010-10-20 21:53|| 2010-10-20 21:53|| Front Page Top

#20 Oh, and I imagine the "parents" are still getting their full allotment of food stamps for Cheetos and to trade for booze.

Posted by KBK 2010-10-20 21:57|| 2010-10-20 21:57|| Front Page Top

#21 I don't have a problem paying for meals at school in principal. I would NEVER allow it for my kids, but I am a somewhat attentive parent. I don't think the feds should have anything to do with it however.

Posted by JayDee65 2010-10-20 22:04|| 2010-10-20 22:04|| Front Page Top

#22 Also, another relative of mine is a regular parent AND a foster parent that saved a young sweet girl from being gang raped in a crack house.

Some foster parents are like that, Private Eye. I have two foster daughters that I know are not dead because we took them in -- but trailing daughter #2 brought them home, they didn't go through the system. In fact, the social worker dealing with Formerly Temporary Daughter told me bluntly that if I registered, I would never get her -- her upper middle class parents might possibly respond to the threat of juvenile hall, but giving her to me would not make them feed their children.

And some foster parents wrap their charges in duct tape and lock them in closets while they go off for the weekend, then neglect to mention there's no reason for the department to continue paying them because the child has died.

I vote for feeding those kids and brainwashing them into doing their schoolwork, getting legal jobs, and marrying before making babies.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-10-20 22:57|| 2010-10-20 22:57|| Front Page Top

23:12 pan
22:57 trailing wife
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:38 trailing wife
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:11 ryuge
22:07 OldSpook
22:04 JayDee65
21:59 JosephMendiola
21:57 KBK
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:53 Anonymoose
21:53 JosephMendiola
21:53 KBK
21:47 JosephMendiola
21:40 SteveS
21:21 JosephMendiola
21:08 JosephMendiola
20:55 PrivateEye
20:55 Mr. Bill
20:53 JosephMendiola
20:45 Goober Ulomoter7983
20:45 JosephMendiola