More than 400 comments so far. (26 of them are NYT Picks.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/op...unch.html?_r=0

First paragraphs:

By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a masochistic sort of way.

The latest example is Michael Moore's new documentary, "Where to Invade Next," which opens nationwide next month. Mr. Moore visits a village in Normandy and finds schoolchildren eating scallops, lamb skewers and a cheese course. He tells us, astonishingly, that the chef "spends less per lunch than we do in our schools in the United States," and ends the segment by showing French students and adults photos of the food served in a Boston high school. As they pore over the pictures in puzzlement and horror, we read subtitled comments like "Seriously, what is that?" and "Frankly, that's not food."

That scene drew a lot of laughs, but as someone who has written about school food for almost six years, it made me want to scream in frustration. One might easily conclude from this segment that our students could have these same delicious meals, cooked from scratch, if only our school districts weren't cheap, mismanaged or somehow captive to the processed food industry. But the problem with America's school food has little to do with the schools themselves.

Let's start with money. The federal government provides a little over $3 per student per lunch, and school districts receive a smaller contribution from their state. But districts generally require their food departments to pay their own overhead, including electricity, accounting and trash collection. Most are left with a dollar and change for food -- and no matter what Mr. Moore says, no one is buying scallops and lamb on that meager budget.

Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

(snip)



Lenona.

wrote:
Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

(snip)



Lenona.


How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?

Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!

My GOD!

wrote in message
...
More than 400 comments so far. (26 of them are NYT Picks.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/op...unch.html?_r=0

First paragraphs:

By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
masochistic sort of way.

The latest example is Michael Moore's new documentary, "Where to Invade
Next," which opens nationwide next month. Mr. Moore visits a village in
Normandy and finds schoolchildren eating scallops, lamb skewers and a cheese
course. He tells us, astonishingly, that the chef "spends less per lunch
than we do in our schools in the United States," and ends the segment by
showing French students and adults photos of the food served in a Boston
high school. As they pore over the pictures in puzzlement and horror, we
read subtitled comments like "Seriously, what is that?" and "Frankly, that's
not food."

That scene drew a lot of laughs, but as someone who has written about school
food for almost six years, it made me want to scream in frustration. One
might easily conclude from this segment that our students could have these
same delicious meals, cooked from scratch, if only our school districts
weren't cheap, mismanaged or somehow captive to the processed food industry.
But the problem with America's school food has little to do with the schools
themselves.

Let's start with money. The federal government provides a little over $3 per
student per lunch, and school districts receive a smaller contribution from
their state. But districts generally require their food departments to pay
their own overhead, including electricity, accounting and trash collection.
Most are left with a dollar and change for food -- and no matter what Mr.
Moore says, no one is buying scallops and lamb on that meager budget.

Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and
wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American
school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's
likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

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

If you gave US schools $7 per meal, they would put the money to increased
payroll and benefits. The food wouldn't improve one bit.

taxed and spent wrote:
wrote in message
...
More than 400 comments so far. (26 of them are NYT Picks.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/op...unch.html?_r=0

First paragraphs:

By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
masochistic sort of way.

The latest example is Michael Moore's new documentary, "Where to Invade
Next," which opens nationwide next month. Mr. Moore visits a village in
Normandy and finds schoolchildren eating scallops, lamb skewers and a cheese
course. He tells us, astonishingly, that the chef "spends less per lunch
than we do in our schools in the United States," and ends the segment by
showing French students and adults photos of the food served in a Boston
high school. As they pore over the pictures in puzzlement and horror, we
read subtitled comments like "Seriously, what is that?" and "Frankly, that's
not food."

That scene drew a lot of laughs, but as someone who has written about school
food for almost six years, it made me want to scream in frustration. One
might easily conclude from this segment that our students could have these
same delicious meals, cooked from scratch, if only our school districts
weren't cheap, mismanaged or somehow captive to the processed food industry.
But the problem with America's school food has little to do with the schools
themselves.

Let's start with money. The federal government provides a little over $3 per
student per lunch, and school districts receive a smaller contribution from
their state. But districts generally require their food departments to pay
their own overhead, including electricity, accounting and trash collection.
Most are left with a dollar and change for food -- and no matter what Mr.
Moore says, no one is buying scallops and lamb on that meager budget.

Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and
wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American
school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's
likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

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

If you gave US schools $7 per meal, they would put the money to increased
payroll and benefits. The food wouldn't improve one bit.



Ayup.

wrote in message
...
More than 400 comments so far. (26 of them are NYT Picks.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/op...unch.html?_r=0

First paragraphs:

By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
masochistic sort of way.

The latest example is Michael Moore's new documentary, "Where to Invade
Next," which opens nationwide next month. Mr. Moore visits a village in
Normandy and finds schoolchildren eating scallops, lamb skewers and a cheese
course. He tells us, astonishingly, that the chef "spends less per lunch
than we do in our schools in the United States," and ends the segment by
showing French students and adults photos of the food served in a Boston
high school. As they pore over the pictures in puzzlement and horror, we
read subtitled comments like "Seriously, what is that?" and "Frankly, that's
not food."

That scene drew a lot of laughs, but as someone who has written about school
food for almost six years, it made me want to scream in frustration. One
might easily conclude from this segment that our students could have these
same delicious meals, cooked from scratch, if only our school districts
weren't cheap, mismanaged or somehow captive to the processed food industry.
But the problem with America's school food has little to do with the schools
themselves.

Let's start with money. The federal government provides a little over $3 per
student per lunch, and school districts receive a smaller contribution from
their state. But districts generally require their food departments to pay
their own overhead, including electricity, accounting and trash collection.
Most are left with a dollar and change for food -- and no matter what Mr.
Moore says, no one is buying scallops and lamb on that meager budget.

Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income and
wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an American
school food services director and you may want to have tissues handy as he's
likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

(snip)



Lenona.

---

This is a very big country. Just because some things are served in one
school district, doesn't mean all of them are that way. The one that gets
me is circulating on FB where it shows cups of raw fruits and vegetables and
demands to know why our school kids can't be served that. Well they can!
And they are. At least here. My daughter rarely ever bought a full lunch
since we moved here, but she did buy the fruits and vegetables and sometimes
the popcorn.

"cibola de oro" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family income
and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum to an
American school food services director and you may want to have tissues
handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

(snip)



Lenona.


How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?

Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!

My GOD!

I'm a big proponent of the beans and rice diet, with some other veggies and
fruits on the side.

Julie Bove wrote:

"cibola de oro" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Contrast this with France, where meal prices are tied to family
income and wealthy parents can pay around $7 per meal. Give that sum
to an American school food services director and you may want to have
tissues handy as he's likely to break down in incredulous tears.

Then there's labor and infrastructure...

(snip)



Lenona.


How many of US do you plan to LOOT to do that?

Clue - kids don't need to eat sea sccallops and lobster for lunch!

My GOD!

I'm a big proponent of the beans and rice diet, with some other veggies
and fruits on the side.

I have no qualms with that!

wrote:
By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a masochistic sort of way.

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

whereas here in AMERICA children can do what they please, which often
means they can for example go across the street from their high schools
and enjoy the freedom to choose from among the nutritious fast food
offerings, from McDonald's to KFC to Panda Express, and pay less than
seven dollars because the free market makes it possible

tert in seattle wrote:
wrote:
By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a masochistic sort of way.

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

Mostly true, yes.

whereas here in AMERICA children can do what they please, which often
means they can for example go across the street from their high schools
and enjoy the freedom to choose from among the nutritious fast food
offerings, from McDonald's to KFC to Panda Express, and pay less than
seven dollars because the free market makes it possible

It's all about choice and liberty, snarker.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
wrote:

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.

plonk

On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
wrote:

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.

plonk

The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
led to dictatorship.

--
Bruce

"tert in seattle" wrote in message
...
wrote:
By BETTINA ELIAS SIEGEL JAN. 15, 2016

Houston -- There's something about comparing America's school food to the
superior meals in other countries' schools that we seem to enjoy, in a
masochistic sort of way.

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

whereas here in AMERICA children can do what they please, which often
means they can for example go across the street from their high schools
and enjoy the freedom to choose from among the nutritious fast food
offerings, from McDonald's to KFC to Panda Express, and pay less than
seven dollars because the free market makes it possible

That's not always the case and there is often not food near the school.
They also have a limited lunch period. It's not even an hour.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 20:38:03 -0000 (UTC), Bruce
wrote:

On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
wrote:

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.

plonk

The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
led to dictatorship.

Any political ideology/system eventually leads to some form of
tyranny, due to the inherent laziness and gullibility of the people
living under it... we only pay lip service to 'eternal vigilance' and
can't be bothered to actively participate when and where necessary.

The New Other Guy wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
wrote:

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.

plonk






Marxist tantrums as=re the very bestest!

:-)

Bruce wrote:
On 18/1/2016 07:28 The New Other Guy wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:50:36 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
wrote:

yes, there is something about comparing the children in AMERICA to those
children who live in socialist countries, where they will never grow up
to enjoy shooting a gun, and will be forced to do exactly what their
governments tell them to do from cradle to grave

That is NOT AT ALL how socialism works, and YOU are a freakin dumbass.

plonk

The problem with socialism is that every attempt to implement it, has
led to dictatorship.

+.5

"almost every attempt"...