Potomac Fever is the blog of the Hamilton College Semester in Washington Program.
those are authentic 3D movie glasses I borrowed from a friend...so yeah, you could say they're "nice"
I like the shirt!
Looking past Whitney's glaring fashion faux pas, I commend this Chicago school. At least someone is trying to do something about the epidemic of Childhood obesity.
By banning home packed lunches? Why don't we just restrict all of our choices to get the best outcomes possible and then we will have a utopian society! This type of utilitarian thinking strikes me as dangerous.
What? Why wouldn't you want the best outcomes possible? This is not utilitarianism, which is a doctrine that says Government should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This is about helping kids, especially poor kids, eat healthier. I do not see how you think this is some sort of weird conspiracy.
Because the policies that are thought to have the best possible outcomes do not always produce the best possible outcomes. Governments taking control of people's decisions because "they know what's best" has have historically failed over and over again.
So you would rather kids be forced to eat cheaper, unhealthy food? I really do not see this as an issue. The fact is that some kids in the United States have a lower life expectation than their parents because of their dietary habits. Not only will this save lives, it will reduce healthcare costs long term. But since its Government, and everything Government does is bad, we should discontinue it?
Megan, just because government has failed doesn't mean it will always fail. I don't know which side I would take in this school lunch debate, but to say government intervention always fails seems a little over the top to me. Was the government banning child labor a failure? What about the Civil Rights Act? What about seatbelt requirements? There are a plethora of counterexamples for your statement, and while I realize you are conservative, government is not always bad and that view shouldn't have a part in American political debate.
So it didn't take long for this debate to get outrageously hyperbolic on both sides...All we're talking about local school administrators tweaking policy within their own schools. It's not government policy, but rather the decision made by a principal in charge of her school. Hardly an Orwellian nightmare.I just hope that cafeteria is halfway decent.
The rise of the nanny state.Should we be confident that school food is any good?
I am sort of in between on this one. Yes, there are some kids who do not have the means to bring in nutritious food from home but I doubt the one size fits all cafeteria lunches are the best option for kids. All kids need nutritious food but they do not all need the same ones. It makes it especially difficult for schools to cater to kids who observe religious regulations, have special dietary needs, or allergies to certain foods. And you are mistaken if you think we are going to see cafeterias like the ones at colleges where there are options for all different sorts of tastes. I really do not know which side can do a better job addressing these needs but as of now, both options can be unhealthy for a child.
Yeah, I agree with Dylan even though he made me eat bad food at the Dirksen Cafeteria with his socially inept colleague earlier today.
It is would be far more nutritious, if not delicious. Besides the lack of candy and soda would encourage healthier eating habits. As I said before, I fail to see this as some sort of radical new agenda that is in some way the harbinger of a "Nanny State." As Peter pointed out, Government (which in this case is the principal) has a long and succesful history of promoting good health. I am not saying that Government is the answer to all of our problems but we entrust the Government to educate our kids, what makes you think feeding them nutritious food is any different?
Dylan,The Schools said they would make allowances for people with allergies and I am sure they would make allowances for genuine religious reasons. It may be a bit draconian in the sense that not every kid needs to abide by these new dietary restrictions, but what is the harm? These changes will genuinely help all of the kids, especially those from poorer households.
Long ago in a distant land, my school lunches were horrible and unhealthy.
As were mine, but the point behind this program is that the school can and does provide a much healthier alternative to most home brought lunches.
Hmm, I see what you mean
Eat, baby, eat.
A cost benefit analysis is not the answer to everything. People make stupid choices, and people have the right to make stupid choices unless the issue of safety, defense, human rights etc. is involved. It's a slippery slope my friend.
Hamilton College currently allows a class in DC to have allowance for their own meals. The outcome? Pizza(3)Chipotle (2)Chinese(2)FalafelIndian CuisineMexican CuisinesSalad and fruit sparingly...maybe tje could feed us better...
The only relevant question to me is whether the parents of the children at that school are on board with the policy or not. This is a local issue, and should be dealt with as such, and not as a springboard for the ideologically horny. It's all well and good to make a stink about how the government should stay out of people's choices, but that 'stay out of it' mantra should probably also apply to armchair pundits as well. In other words, a mandate to eliminate mandates is still a mandate.
We certainly are cultured though.
Indeed we are. We read leather-bound books and blog in our free time.
Many children and parents are opposed to it. I think even if there is just one parent opposed to it then it is wrong.
Njdylan, I would not trust Chef TJE.
But TJE, you’re a bureaucrat, don’t you always have our best interests in mind no matter what?
"I think even if there is just one parent opposed to it then it is wrong."That's ridiculous. What if you change it back, and then one parent thinks that is wrong?
Many children and parents are opposed to it.Where are you getting that from?
Chef TJE's motto is burn,baby,burn.
Students at the school did a "we should bring our own lunch chant"http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/11/chicago-school-bans-bag-lunches-to-get-kids-to-eat-less-junk-foo/And if one parent is opposed to her kid eating a packed lunch then she would give her kid money to buy lunch.
Kids would also probably prefer no HW. Should we acquiesce on that? I'm more interested in whether there's evidence that 'many parents,' which you suggested, are opposed to this. As for the idea that one parent being opposed to the plan meaning that the plan should be shuttered, that's beyond ridiculous. Find me ANY issue that an entire school's worth of parents agree on.
Majority preferences vs. individual rights. I think it is the right of a mother to decide what her kid eats. Show me another school policy that infringes on parental choice like this.
that doesn't involve safety or human rights
Antilibrarianism-- not at MY Hamilton.
Post a Comment