New Mexico bans "lunch shaming"

[Dr. Arch]

Just for comparison's sake, in Puerto Rico for as long as I can remember, all breakfasts and lunches are cooked on site and provided to children and staff, free of charge. Nobody has to worry about going hungry while studying, and it's a great thing. Imagine that.

And in America for as long as I can remember, it's been an option.  Pay a very, very small fee to have lunch provided or pack a lunch for the child to take.  Imagine that.

Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. Please read up on basic American history before trying to be snarky with anyone.

 Oh please.  The United States of America then.  There are 50 of them.

Yes I am aware that Puerto Rico is a US territory.  You knew what I meant.

Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America. Try again. Your knee-jerk reaction to try the frame the differences in Puerto Rico from the mainland as it were a foreign country is nil.

You don't know what you mean. Or maybe you do, but you're trying to be PC about it

If you want to pretend I don't know Puerto Rico is a US territory, go right ahead.

You are already wrong about everything else, what's one more thing?

"Everything else," yea sure. Can your umbrella statements. Show me where I'm wrong then.

The United States of America is a country. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States of America. Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America.

Puerto Rico is not a state within the United States of America, but it is a territory where American citizens are born and live.

Since Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America, everything that happens in Puerto Rico is part of what happens America (i.e., the United States of America, which is what you meant).

In Puerto Rico, a lot is done like the United States of America, but there are differences both policy-wise and cultural that do not span the nation of the United States of America, much like many states operate differently under the United States of America.

Do you have any questions, or do you want to send out another broad statement in an attempt to dismiss me so you don't have to go into the nuance you're purposefully avoiding?

[DC Al Fine]

several points...
1.this isn't normal, the fact that this is a story proves that
b.a balanced meal should be provided, for a minimal fee or free to poor people at every public school.
III.it is (well, often not balanced because the govt is still quite anti-science when it comes to nutrition)

When did free (or even full price) lunches in schools become a thing in America? My schools' facilities never extended beyond vending machines, so this is all a bit strange to me.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

several points...
1.this isn't normal, the fact that this is a story proves that
b.a balanced meal should be provided, for a minimal fee or free to poor people at every public school.
III.it is (well, often not balanced because the govt is still quite anti-science when it comes to nutrition)

When did free (or even full price) lunches in schools become a thing in America? My schools' facilities never extended beyond vending machines, so this is all a bit strange to me.

Cafeterias aren't a thing in your area?   Were students just expected to bring their own lunch?

[DC Al Fine]

several points...
1.this isn't normal, the fact that this is a story proves that
b.a balanced meal should be provided, for a minimal fee or free to poor people at every public school.
III.it is (well, often not balanced because the govt is still quite anti-science when it comes to nutrition)

When did free (or even full price) lunches in schools become a thing in America? My schools' facilities never extended beyond vending machines, so this is all a bit strange to me.

Cafeterias aren't a thing in your area?   Were students just expected to bring their own lunch?

Yes. People who lived nearby walked home and everyone else brown bagged.

[Skill and Chance]

several points...
1.this isn't normal, the fact that this is a story proves that
b.a balanced meal should be provided, for a minimal fee or free to poor people at every public school.
III.it is (well, often not balanced because the govt is still quite anti-science when it comes to nutrition)

When did free (or even full price) lunches in schools become a thing in America? My schools' facilities never extended beyond vending machines, so this is all a bit strange to me.

Cafeterias aren't a thing in your area?   Were students just expected to bring their own lunch?

Yes. People who lived nearby walked home and everyone else brown bagged.

Interesting.  Would have guessed, if anything, that it would have evolved to be the other way around in the US/Canada.

[Santander]

several points...
1.this isn't normal, the fact that this is a story proves that
b.a balanced meal should be provided, for a minimal fee or free to poor people at every public school.
III.it is (well, often not balanced because the govt is still quite anti-science when it comes to nutrition)

When did free (or even full price) lunches in schools become a thing in America? My schools' facilities never extended beyond vending machines, so this is all a bit strange to me.

Cafeterias aren't a thing in your area?  Were students just expected to bring their own lunch?

I don't mean to single out this post, but I think this is a good example of the close-minded thinking by both the left and right. One can believe that feeding poor children is important, but disagree with dumping that problem into the school system. I talked about this before - we dump all of our social problems into the school system in America as if putting everything in one place and then throwing money at it will solve the problem. Schools are a convenient black box where we can throw our problems and feel good about not having to look at them. No wonder schools are failing.

[Indy Texas]

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

...and there is no reward in shaming the poor.

Sometimes generosity is rewarded.  Kids focused on hunger pangs might not be focused on the less immediate concern of learning in the classroom. Maybe their parents are lazy bums, but children need not be ridiculed for that. They aren't the ones to urge their parents to do day labor.

It's not as if kids are getting free cable TV complete with bawdy shows, overpriced logo jerseys, or trips to Di$neyland. Food is a necessity, and for kids to do well in school and have a chance in American life they may need some food in their bellies.

This. One of the reasons why I'm no longer a conservative is stuff like this. The knee-jerk responses to take better care of your kids, get a better paying job, stop mooching, etc from the right just are not logical in most instances. Most of the families that are on free or reduced are in areas where pay is low, can't move, single head of household, and more. Instead of complaining about and cutting these programs, conservatives would be right to preserve and do outreach for these minimizing the left but moreso being decent human beings on this issue.

Whenever you make policy that impacts children, you should always do so with the first principle that:

No child asks to be born.

And thus, poverty or irresponsibility on the part of one's parents is something that a child should bear zero consequences or responsibility for.

[Indy Texas]

New Mexico has been on a progressive roll lately

Then again, state legislators in New Mexico have no salary and work for free if I recall correctly

That's not the sort of thing that would make them more progressive.

Anyone who'd be willing to volunteer to be a state legislator probably loves being involved in politics for the betterment of society. I feel like you'd end up with more honest people when money isn't a factor

Only rich people can afford to take several months of work every year to go be an unpaid legislator. That doesn't preclude people from being honest, progressive, etc., but it doesn't foster it either.

Part of the catch 22 of state legislatures. Virginia has almost the same problem, low pay but short stints but no permanent legislature.

Texas does this too and the result is legislators who are:

1. Old retirees over 65. (So old people are disproportionately represented.)

2. People who own their own business and have the ability to leave for months at a time. (So the wealthy are disproportionately represented.)

3. People who are independently wealthy. (See #2)

4. Lawyers or other professions where the nature of the work means that it's possible to leave for 3-5 months without adverse professional consequences. (Disproportionate representation of the professions.)

So basically, if you, like the majority of people, are not old and work as a salaried employee of a company you don't own, you are effectively shut out of participating in your legislature.

[vote for pedro]

Just for comparison's sake, in Puerto Rico for as long as I can remember, all breakfasts and lunches are cooked on site and provided to children and staff, free of charge. Nobody has to worry about going hungry while studying, and it's a great thing. Imagine that.

And in America for as long as I can remember, it's been an option.  Pay a very, very small fee to have lunch provided or pack a lunch for the child to take.  Imagine that.

Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. Please read up on basic American history before trying to be snarky with anyone.

 Oh please.  The United States of America then.  There are 50 of them.

Yes I am aware that Puerto Rico is a US territory.  You knew what I meant.

Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America. Try again. Your knee-jerk reaction to try the frame the differences in Puerto Rico from the mainland as it were a foreign country is nil.

You don't know what you mean. Or maybe you do, but you're trying to be PC about it

If you want to pretend I don't know Puerto Rico is a US territory, go right ahead.

You are already wrong about everything else, what's one more thing?

"Everything else," yea sure. Can your umbrella statements. Show me where I'm wrong then.

The United States of America is a country. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States of America. Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America.

Puerto Rico is not a state within the United States of America, but it is a territory where American citizens are born and live.

Since Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America, everything that happens in Puerto Rico is part of what happens America (i.e., the United States of America, which is what you meant).

In Puerto Rico, a lot is done like the United States of America, but there are differences both policy-wise and cultural that do not span the nation of the United States of America, much like many states operate differently under the United States of America.

Do you have any questions, or do you want to send out another broad statement in an attempt to dismiss me so you don't have to go into the nuance you're purposefully avoiding?

You started your post with 'in contrast' or 'in comparison.'  In comparison to what?  I suppose I should have said "In the REST of America" but then I'm sure you would have come up with some pointless trivia about Guam to argue about and pretend that I don't know Guam is a US territory.

I've never been to Puerto Rico and what I know about it comes from my education and my Puerto Rican friends.  From what they tell me it is a place they would never move back to.  That's as polite as I can put it.

[Dr. Arch]

Just for comparison's sake, in Puerto Rico for as long as I can remember, all breakfasts and lunches are cooked on site and provided to children and staff, free of charge. Nobody has to worry about going hungry while studying, and it's a great thing. Imagine that.

And in America for as long as I can remember, it's been an option.  Pay a very, very small fee to have lunch provided or pack a lunch for the child to take.  Imagine that.

Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. Please read up on basic American history before trying to be snarky with anyone.

 Oh please.  The United States of America then.  There are 50 of them.

Yes I am aware that Puerto Rico is a US territory.  You knew what I meant.

Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America. Try again. Your knee-jerk reaction to try the frame the differences in Puerto Rico from the mainland as it were a foreign country is nil.

You don't know what you mean. Or maybe you do, but you're trying to be PC about it

If you want to pretend I don't know Puerto Rico is a US territory, go right ahead.

You are already wrong about everything else, what's one more thing?

"Everything else," yea sure. Can your umbrella statements. Show me where I'm wrong then.

The United States of America is a country. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States of America. Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America.

Puerto Rico is not a state within the United States of America, but it is a territory where American citizens are born and live.

Since Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America, everything that happens in Puerto Rico is part of what happens America (i.e., the United States of America, which is what you meant).

In Puerto Rico, a lot is done like the United States of America, but there are differences both policy-wise and cultural that do not span the nation of the United States of America, much like many states operate differently under the United States of America.

Do you have any questions, or do you want to send out another broad statement in an attempt to dismiss me so you don't have to go into the nuance you're purposefully avoiding?

You started your post with 'in contrast' or 'in comparison.'  In comparison to what?  I suppose I should have said "In the REST of America" but then I'm sure you would have come up with some pointless trivia about Guam to argue about and pretend that I don't know Guam is a US territory.

I've never been to Puerto Rico and what I know about it comes from my education and my Puerto Rican friends.  From what they tell me it is a place they would never move back to.  That's as polite as I can put it.

Actually, if you would've acknowledged what's in bold, that would've been the end of it, and if you would've said that from the beginning, I wouldn't have said anything about it.

[nclib]

Wow. It's insane this is going on. It's bad enough to shame poor adults. But children have absolutely no control over having poor parents. The fact is, the right-wing lacks compassion and sensitivity, plain and simple. They try to spin it as teaching personal responsibility, but we aren't fooled.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

FTFY

And in this case, the cost of having undernourished, sullen students is higher than that of providing a hot lunch to students.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Spare the pointless moralizing. Some kids don't get enough to eat at home or anything at all, so school lunches are often the only thing they get to eat in the day. Not everyone can afford food after paying rent and bills.

The state should take those children away from their parents and feed them three meals a day.

Not being able to afford food is not a reason to take children out of the home and put them in the foster care system which is full of abuse.

Not to mention that the foster care system is generally so overworked and underfunded that sometimes it fails to get kids out of situations where real abuse is going on.  Or that it would be cheaper to provide free school lunches to all than to place kids in foster care simply because their parents are poor.

[pbrower2a]

several points...
1.this isn't normal, the fact that this is a story proves that
b.a balanced meal should be provided, for a minimal fee or free to poor people at every public school.
III.it is (well, often not balanced because the govt is still quite anti-science when it comes to nutrition)

When did free (or even full price) lunches in schools become a thing in America? My schools' facilities never extended beyond vending machines, so this is all a bit strange to me.

Cafeterias aren't a thing in your area?  Were students just expected to bring their own lunch?

I don't mean to single out this post, but I think this is a good example of the close-minded thinking by both the left and right. One can believe that feeding poor children is important, but disagree with dumping that problem into the school system. I talked about this before - we dump all of our social problems into the school system in America as if putting everything in one place and then throwing money at it will solve the problem. Schools are a convenient black box where we can throw our problems and feel good about not having to look at them. No wonder schools are failing.

Take it from this once-and-future substitute teacher; hungry kids do not learn well. They also get unruly and surly. Unlike some other problems (for example: teachers are not trained to be social workers even if they can be eyes and ears), food service at the schools is a reasonable thing to provide. Hungry kids are not good learners.

No child deserves to be shamed for poverty or for having neglectful/abusive/improvident parents.... let alone customers of "Walter White" (lest you have already forgotten Breaking Bad and its connection to New Mexico).

 

[Meclazine for Israel]

If a child is impoverished through no fault of their own, then this seems unecessary.

If there mum is smoking crack and not giving any money to her kids, this is a level of negative reinforcement that would bury their inspiration to suceed.

To actually stand up silently and withstand such damning social pressures when combined with a dysfuncrional family life is a lot of weight for a child to carry.

Non-beneficial.

[pbrower2a]

If a child is impoverished through no fault of their own, then this seems unnecessary.

If there mum is smoking crack and not giving any money to her kids, this is a level of negative reinforcement that would bury their inspiration to succeed.

To actually stand up silently and withstand such damning social pressures when combined with a dysfunctional family life is a lot of weight for a child to carry.

Non-beneficial.

Shame the parents, if necessary -- but not the kids.