When will the DNC ever learn?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: halik
my only complaint about that is food in public schools - i remeber all that stuff was nasty as hell - pizza, hamburgers, fries etc. Everythign deep fried and dripping with grease

Pack a pb&j sandwich.

Wouldn't it help is schools provided healthy food? I mean, they're public, so shouldn't the government at least cut out unhealthy foods in schools?

I agree that people should bring a sandwich, but I don't believe it excuses the leaders of America's public schools to throw the unhealthiest trash.

Back in 8th grade, before I headed off to private school, some kids would have a snapple and a chipwich (ice cream cookie sandwich) for lunch. Why even offer those options?
It's my understanding that public schools have to provide a nutritionally balanced menu according to specific government guidelines. I don't think it's their responsiblity to force kids to eat only from that selection though.

When I went to school there were pre-paid lunch cards. You were allowed to select a certain amount of items from the lunch line and you got your card punched. Junk like ice cream and soda cost extra. We couldn't eat the junk if our parents didn't give us extra money to buy it (and mine didn't). Do schools still have that same sort of program in place?


For us you payed for your lunches in cash. So a student could use that money for junk food instead. The problem is that allthough parents tend to favor healthy food they don't want to pay more and the junk food is MUCH more popular with the students (suprise!). Basically, since we can't stand over our kids while they eat lunch, the only way to get them to eat better is to remove the junk food options (at least the really bad stuff like sodas and candy). I don't really see this as a government thing though. It seems to be more influenced by the individual schools and school systems. Schools are the ones making these options available.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: halik
my only complaint about that is food in public schools - i remeber all that stuff was nasty as hell - pizza, hamburgers, fries etc. Everythign deep fried and dripping with grease

Pack a pb&j sandwich.

Wouldn't it help is schools provided healthy food? I mean, they're public, so shouldn't the government at least cut out unhealthy foods in schools?

I agree that people should bring a sandwich, but I don't believe it excuses the leaders of America's public schools to throw the unhealthiest trash.

Back in 8th grade, before I headed off to private school, some kids would have a snapple and a chipwich (ice cream cookie sandwich) for lunch. Why even offer those options?
They do. The snapple and chipwich are snacks meant for after school. The standard $2 lunch = carton of milk, side, and entree.

I'd like my kids to enjoy the occasional dessert, what kind of freedom is it taking that away from them because of some fatties who can't control themselves.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: tss4
For us you payed for your lunches in cash. So a student could use that money for junk food instead. The problem is that allthough parents tend to favor healthy food they don't want to pay more and the junk food is MUCH more popular with the students (suprise!). Basically, since we can't stand over our kids while they eat lunch, the only way to get them to eat better is to remove the junk food options (at least the really bad stuff like sodas and candy). I don't really see this as a government thing though. It seems to be more influenced by the individual schools and school systems. Schools are the ones making these options available.
I guess it wouldn't be that bad removing the sodas, candy, and junk food from public school cafeterias. If the parents really want their kids eating that crap, I guess they can always pack their kids a lunch of a Mountain Dew, a bag of Guacamole Doritos, and a stack of double-thick Oreos.

 

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Proletariat
LOL well if it isn't my arch enemy.
Wow. Flatter yourself much?

I'm sure if you read his previous posts you will see what I'm talking about. He claims to be a turned Democrat but he doesn't have one ounce of it in him. He attacks them way more than even you do. He just puts on that fascade to make himself seem more legit. Its lame.
So by stating that exercise and nutrition for children is largely the responsibilty of their parents, and not the federal governement, he's a fake ex-Democrat? :confused:
Sup.

Alright I had to create this account because the stupid anandtech server thingie changed the mailing address for the forgotten passwords somehow :| God knows where its sending all of my requests. So I am using this account for work.

Summary: This is me when I'm at work.

Ok on to the topic at hand. You do seem to like posting against me, I'm not flattering myself because you do it quite a lot.

As for Chicken, god knows where he found this damn thing. Probably buried real deep. This isn't really news worthy at all. Hes taking the Democrats insignificant assault on an insignificant news story on Bush and blowing it out of proportion.

Oh, and no I don't think American parents can do a god damn thing. They must be some of the worst parents in the world. They live in the richest country in the world with huge amounts of parental advice, booklets etc. and half of them couldn't give a rats ass about their kids. Either that or their way too stressed out from working too much to care about their kids. The government at some point may have to step in. The amount of drugs, alcohol, bad food, dangerous skating and driving this generation does is absurd. Now I'm all for the above in moderation, I happen to think drugs can change your entire life outlook and make you a better person if you are with the right people, but some of the kids I know are absolutely out of it. And these aren't poor ghetto kids. These are rich white kids who down 17 shots a night.
 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: halik
my only complaint about that is food in public schools - i remeber all that stuff was nasty as hell - pizza, hamburgers, fries etc. Everythign deep fried and dripping with grease

Pack a pb&j sandwich.

Wouldn't it help is schools provided healthy food? I mean, they're public, so shouldn't the government at least cut out unhealthy foods in schools?

I agree that people should bring a sandwich, but I don't believe it excuses the leaders of America's public schools to throw the unhealthiest trash.

Back in 8th grade, before I headed off to private school, some kids would have a snapple and a chipwich (ice cream cookie sandwich) for lunch. Why even offer those options?
They do. The snapple and chipwich are snacks meant for after school. The standard $2 lunch = carton of milk, side, and entree.

I'd like my kids to enjoy the occasional dessert, what kind of freedom is it taking that away from them because of some fatties who can't control themselves.

That seems reasonable, pack a dessert in their lunch ;).

All kidding aside, I don't believe you're hurting any students by removing the really bad foods (soda, sugary drinks, really unhealthy foods). Who loses? The people who supply schools w/ that sort of food, and until there is enough demand by people in communities to stop selling crappy food in school, kids will eat it. The parents have a difficult time with this unless they don't give the kids money and pack a lunch, but some are too busy getting to work in the morning etc.

I don't think there is any logical reason for schools to sell really unhealthy foods, besides the "free will." The problem with that argument is that children develop lots of habits at a young age, and by introducing them to crappy foods starting from elementary schools, they are more likely to develop those bad habits.

Won't someone think of the children?
 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: tss4
For us you payed for your lunches in cash. So a student could use that money for junk food instead. The problem is that allthough parents tend to favor healthy food they don't want to pay more and the junk food is MUCH more popular with the students (suprise!). Basically, since we can't stand over our kids while they eat lunch, the only way to get them to eat better is to remove the junk food options (at least the really bad stuff like sodas and candy). I don't really see this as a government thing though. It seems to be more influenced by the individual schools and school systems. Schools are the ones making these options available.
I guess it wouldn't be that bad removing the sodas, candy, and junk food from public school cafeterias. If the parents really want their kids eating that crap, I guess they can always pack their kids a lunch of a Mountain Dew, a bag of Guacamole Doritos, and a stack of double-thick Oreos.

Woohoo!!! We agree on something! Although I feel more strongly: It would be GREAT if they removed those :).
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The government is partially responsible for the low quality food served in school cafeterias.USDA website on school lunch program
Unfortunately, USDA tends to act like FDA. Instead of serving children, they tend to believe industry is their master. Accordingly, the menu is filled with crappy staples plus an extraordinary amount of processed food.

On a positive note, several states are taking the initiative to ban vending machines (or at least ban minimally nutritious offerings). Several local school districts are testing model programs of expanding fresh produce offerings in school meals.

Physical fitness used to be an integral part of EVERY school's curriculum. I believe Illinois is the only state left that has mandatory daily physical activity. The trend downwards certainly didn't start with Bush . . . it's decades old in fact. But his BS legislation "Leave No Child Properly Educated But Test the Crap Out of Them", compels school systems to cut resources in domains that are not dogmatically associated with standardized test performance.

No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate in everything but name only. Most of the Arts were cut first but PE wasn't far behind. Bush isn't evil . . . just shortsighted and ignorant.

Oh and for the record, Bush's health was "superior" for his age.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The government is partially responsible for the low quality food served in school cafeterias.USDA website on school lunch program
Unfortunately, USDA tends to act like FDA. Instead of serving children, they tend to believe industry is their master. Accordingly, the menu is filled with crappy staples plus an extraordinary amount of processed food.

How do you offer a well balanced meal of fresh produce for $2? Of course its processed food.

I can pack chips with my kids lunch, but I can't easily pack soda and keep it cold enough 8-10 hours later after sports practice. Besides, get rid of snacks, and 711 props up a store 1000 feet away. I would think a middle/high school kid is old enough to decide when he/she wants a candy bar?

What happened to parenting in this country?

 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
The author of that memo should take a look at the REAL results of Title IX, before making those ridiculous statements.

What am I saying, I'm sure they already know the real results, they just dont care.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: zendari
Women's sports killed itself off. They couldn't bring in revenue.

Women's sports have killed mens sports off. Title IX is a disastrous piece of sh1t legislation and basically requires colleges to cut popular and profitable mens programs and keep around unpopular and unprofitable womens programs to make sure that there is "equality" in their programs. Never mind that less women are interested in sports, and less people are interested in watching womens' sports, and there's no female equivalent of football (though women are allowed to play on men's teams) so there is always going to be a disparity.

I don't really think that's true. Men's basketball and football, for example, bring in revenue many times higher than the cost of the programs, which probably is used to subsidize other sports. At least at most D1 schools, they require nothing from the university besides players. And its also other men's sports that fall under this category. Men's squash is just as useless as women's basketball in this regard.

It would probably make colleges cheaper if we could cancel useless crap like women's lacrosse that ends up costing the students money.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: zendari
Women's sports killed itself off. They couldn't bring in revenue.

Women's sports have killed mens sports off. Title IX is a disastrous piece of sh1t legislation and basically requires colleges to cut popular and profitable mens programs and keep around unpopular and unprofitable womens programs to make sure that there is "equality" in their programs. Never mind that less women are interested in sports, and less people are interested in watching womens' sports, and there's no female equivalent of football (though women are allowed to play on men's teams) so there is always going to be a disparity.

I don't really think that's true. Men's basketball and football, for example, bring in revenue many times higher than the cost of the programs for a small percentage of colleges in the US, which probably is used to subsidize other sports. At least at most D1 schools, they require nothing from the university besides players. And its also other men's sports that fall under this category. Men's squash is just as useless as women's basketball in this regard.

It would probably make colleges cheaper if we could cancel useless crap like women's lacrosse that ends up costing the students money.
corrections in bold. Remember that not all schools get thier games broadcast on TV, and make millions in merchandising. I think the schools that actuall break even or better with athletics is 5%. Title IX has caused more harm than good in most schools.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The government is partially responsible for the low quality food served in school cafeterias.USDA website on school lunch program
Unfortunately, USDA tends to act like FDA. Instead of serving children, they tend to believe industry is their master. Accordingly, the menu is filled with crappy staples plus an extraordinary amount of processed food.

How do you offer a well balanced meal of fresh produce for $2? Of course its processed food.

I can pack chips with my kids lunch, but I can't easily pack soda and keep it cold enough 8-10 hours later after sports practice. Besides, get rid of snacks, and 711 props up a store 1000 feet away. I would think a middle/high school kid is old enough to decide when he/she wants a candy bar?

What happened to parenting in this country?
Planning . . . preferrably central. Further, the Web is under utilized as a resource to bring providers (producers within a reasonable radius) and schools together. Further, some districts are so retarded that they run their food programs as semi-autonomous or fully outsourced. It's the very lack of control that produces such warped priorities in the kiddie food chain.

Before this past year, kindergartners (that's 5-6 yrs old) at my wife's school could go through the lunch line and purchase an armful of Lil' Debbie snack cakes. At the same time, one old hag almost had it out with my father-in-law b/c she refused to allow him to purchase a salad for a kid.

Oh . . . parenting sux . . . but it's hard to compete with the "consumer" culture. Morgan Spurlock's movie was a touch over the top but the general concepts are accurate. Unless you lock your kid in the basement, they will be inundated with media images that glamorize garbage 24/7. It's hard enough for vigilant two-parent households to have a fighting chance but it's a total disaster for kids of working single-parents.

So for the record, the DNC has identified a real problem. It's not Bush's fault overall but he hasn't helped.


 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I can't believe this. What kind of doofus is running their show? They use Bush's physical results as a partisan political op?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u...ing_games_with_physical_fitness314_xml

To: National Desk, Education and Political reporter

Contact: Josh Earnest of the Democratic National Committee Staff, 202-863-8148

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a fact sheet released today by the Democratic National Committee:

The White House this weekend announced that President Bush received good news during his annual physical. Doctors pronounced the President to be in "superior" physical condition, which media reports attributed to his rigorous, six day a week exercise routine. While President Bush has made physical fitness a personal priority, his cuts to education funding have forced schools to roll back physical education classes and his Administration's efforts to undermine Title IX sports programs have threatened thousands of women's college sports programs.

"President Bush's has dropped the ball when it comes to fully funding physical education in public schools and women's athletic programs at the college level," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Josh Earnest. "His personal habits indicate that physical fitness is not just fun and games for him. Don't our kids deserve the same opportunities to be physically fit? President Bush should stop running from his responsibility and make sure that all American children have access to physical fitness programs."

BUSH IN SUPERIOR HEALTH, BUT AMERICA'S YOUTH NOT

Doctors gave President Bush a clean bill of health in his annual checkup this weekend and White House spokesperson Dana Perino proclaimed him to be "in superior health." However, America's youth are not so lucky. While obesity has been declared an epidemic in this country, Bush's education policy is putting children at risk with cuts in physical education and school athletic programs.

BUSH CUTTING PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Bush's 2006 Budget Cut Physical Education By 25 Percent. Bush's 2006 budget request cut physical education funding for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade by $18.4 million. The 2006 cut is the "first year of a 2-year phase out of the program in order to redirect resources to higher-priority activities" according to the Department of Education. (U.S. Department of Education)

School Systems Nationwide Forced To Implement Pay-To-Play Athletic Programs. USA Today surveyed state high school sports associations and found 34 states in which associations say at least some school districts are charging students to play sports. Pay-to-play fees have cropped up or ballooned at schools in Alaska, Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan, Kansas and other states. The fees grew from $75 to $250 in one Massachusetts school district two years ago. (Indianapolis Star, 5/2/05; USA Today, 7/30/04)

BUSH ROLLING BACK ATHLETIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN

Bush Weakened Title IX Rules. The Bush Administration's Education Department quietly issued a new clarification of the regulations interpreting Title IX. The new rules allow colleges to demonstrate that they are satisfying the demand for women's sports with an online survey showing that female students have no unmet sports interests. Even if the non-response rate is high in the survey, non-response is to be interpreted as a lack of interest according to the Education Department. (New York Times, 3/23/05)

NCAA President Says Rules Could "Reverse the Progress Made Over the Last Three Decades." "NCAA President Myles Brand joined in condemning the guidelines, saying they could 'reverse the progress made over the last three decades.' He added his disappointment that officials issued the clarification 'without benefit of public discussion and input.'" (Los Angeles Times, 3/23/05)

Bush Recommended Undermining Title IX Rules In 2002 As Well. In June 2002, Bush's Education Secretary Roderick Paige created the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics to review Title IX, the federal law that has expanded athletic opportunities for women and girls for 30 years by barring sexual discrimination. This January the commission came back with recommendations that would ease the regulations of Title IX. A statement by the National Women's Law Center opposed the Bush Commission's proposals, "Some have characterized the Commission's long list of proposed changes as minor and moderate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Make no mistake about it. If accepted by the Bush Administration, the Commission's proposals would dramatically reduce the sports participation opportunities and scholarships to which women and girls are entitled under the law." (Washington Post, 6/27/02; New York Times, 1/31/03; NWLC Statement, 2/5/03, http://www.nwlc.org)

CHILDHOOD OBESITY SKYROCKETING

The Rate Of Childhood Obesity Has Skyrocketed In Recent Years. The rate of childhood obesity has skyrocketed in recent years, and more than 9 million children over age 6 are now considered overweight. The rapid rise has alarmed public health experts, because overweight children are far more likely to develop health problems. Currently, the U.S. government estimates that 30 percent of the nation's kids are overweight or on their way to being too heavy. Nearly twice as many children and three times as many teens are overweight now compared to two decades ago. (Washington Post, 10/1/04; USA Today, 6/4/04; Greensboro News & Record, 3/21/04)
Physical fitness is a personal and parental responsibility, not the government's. Of course childhood obesity is skyrocketing. That's because so many parents permit their children to be babysat by TV, video games, and the internet instead of getting them off their fat cans and involved in physical activities. Maybe if they got their kids up in the morning and had them run a few miles, like Bush does, they wouldn't have to expect the government to coddle their little chubettes and they wouldn't have to rely on school programs to keep their children fit. In fact, if they kept their children in better shape it would help save taxes in the long run that go towards medical care which could then be put back into school sports programs.

Message to DNC: Dump Dean and his crew of attack dogs, please, and get someone who knows how to make real political points instead of vaporous expulsions.

Sounds fair to me, and accurate. What's wrong with them pointing out the hypocrisy of Bush's actions: Taking care of his own health but not ensuring the proper health education for young Americans, by cutting funding for those programs and for not leading on some new initiatives to do so.
Are the Republicans better at PR, obviously, yes. But this is legit stuff you're poo-pooing.
We'll see how it all works out in the end.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
From another hijacked thread:

Originally posted by: alchemize
Having the fattest and laziest people in the world has quite a bit to do with it. Taking another pill is no solution. It's ingrained in our culture.

Greatly tax processed foods, use the tax revenues to subsidize whole foods.
Then dramatically raise insurance rates on fat people and smokers, and reduce it for health folks.

Zero cost system. Never happen, of course, but it'd save billions.
Of course, the democrats aren't any more interested in improving health than the republicans are. Tax and spend, catering to special interest groups.

What Consitutes "fat"? I know thin people with crazy cholesterol who are the laziest peoploe, but i know people who are pudgy because they eat quite a bit, but they exerscise regularly and although they have a gut, they are infintely healthier from the thin people.

To constitute what is "fat" is hard. Its obvious by observing people, but its harder when you have to quantify it...
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: zendari

I don't really think that's true. Men's basketball and football, for example, bring in revenue many times higher than the cost of the programs for a small percentage of colleges in the US, which probably is used to subsidize other sports. At least at most D1 schools, they require nothing from the university besides players. And its also other men's sports that fall under this category. Men's squash is just as useless as women's basketball in this regard.

It would probably make colleges cheaper if we could cancel useless crap like women's lacrosse that ends up costing the students money.
corrections in bold. Remember that not all schools get thier games broadcast on TV, and make millions in merchandising. I think the schools that actuall break even or better with athletics is 5%. Title IX has caused more harm than good in most schools.

Well, some googling resulted in Text

Overall for Division I-A, 74 institutions reported that revenues exceeded expenditures.
In Division I-A programs, football and men's basketball continue to make profits for many institutions.
Sixty-four percent of football programs made a profit, a seven percent decline from the previous study.
Nearly three-fourths of Division I basketball programs report profits. Seventy-four Division I institutions reported that revenues exceeded expenses in men's basketball

There's a lot more there how some schools end up losing money, and a further breakdown. Remember, a lot more students attend big state universities than small private colleges. Many of those large universities are breaking even with athletics, and profiting on the big cash sports.

Ultimately, I agree. Title IX has done lots of harm, if students want sports that can't pay for themselves in the university they shouldn't be funded by the other students.

Sounds fair to me, and accurate. What's wrong with them pointing out the hypocrisy of Bush's actions: Taking care of his own health but not ensuring the proper health education for young Americans, by cutting funding for those programs and for not leading on some new initiatives to do so.
Are the Republicans better at PR, obviously, yes. But this is legit stuff you're poo-pooing.
We'll see how it all works out in the end.
Oh please. Try walking or jogging around the block, its free. Bush does itWhy are women entitled to sports programs that cost the rest of students money with rising tuition costs?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChickenEx-smokers often become some of the most outspoken anti-smokers. And I gave up taking a hit from the Democratic crackpipe long ago.

LOL, no... those are called hypocrites. Just like the born agains who start preaching morality after years of imoral behaviour. The blind leading the blind are still, in fact, blind.
Wait - people who change their actions after realizing they were not good/healthy/moral/legal are now hypocrites? :confused:

Is that like the humorous "Rehab is for quitters!" t-shirts? You realize that is all in jest, correct?

No. What I meant was those who forget what they were before and preach angrily against what they used to be. An outspoken ex-smoker who gets in your face for smoking as though they had never been an addict themselves was more along the lines of what I was speaking of. The same can be said for religious zealots who do the same thing with pushing their new found faith on others, even after you have told them flat out you are happy with your personal choice of religion or lack thereof.
 

Proletariat

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2004
5,614
0
0
Well I had a pretty long response to you Gunslinger, but the whorish mod deleted my work account :| Oh well it got me bummed I might come back tomorrow.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: zendari

I don't really think that's true. Men's basketball and football, for example, bring in revenue many times higher than the cost of the programs for a small percentage of colleges in the US, which probably is used to subsidize other sports. At least at most D1 schools, they require nothing from the university besides players. And its also other men's sports that fall under this category. Men's squash is just as useless as women's basketball in this regard.

It would probably make colleges cheaper if we could cancel useless crap like women's lacrosse that ends up costing the students money.
corrections in bold. Remember that not all schools get thier games broadcast on TV, and make millions in merchandising. I think the schools that actuall break even or better with athletics is 5%. Title IX has caused more harm than good in most schools.

Well, some googling resulted in Text

Overall for Division I-A, 74 institutions reported that revenues exceeded expenditures.
In Division I-A programs, football and men's basketball continue to make profits for many institutions.
Sixty-four percent of football programs made a profit, a seven percent decline from the previous study.
Nearly three-fourths of Division I basketball programs report profits. Seventy-four Division I institutions reported that revenues exceeded expenses in men's basketball

There's a lot more there how some schools end up losing money, and a further breakdown. Remember, a lot more students attend big state universities than small private colleges. Many of those large universities are breaking even with athletics, and profiting on the big cash sports.

Ultimately, I agree. Title IX has done lots of harm, if students want sports that can't pay for themselves in the university they shouldn't be funded by the other students.

Sounds fair to me, and accurate. What's wrong with them pointing out the hypocrisy of Bush's actions: Taking care of his own health but not ensuring the proper health education for young Americans, by cutting funding for those programs and for not leading on some new initiatives to do so.
Are the Republicans better at PR, obviously, yes. But this is legit stuff you're poo-pooing.
We'll see how it all works out in the end.
Oh please. Try walking or jogging around the block, its free. Bush does itWhy are women entitled to sports programs that cost the rest of students money with rising tuition costs?






I'm in excellent shape there, bucky. It isn't always about the individual.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: zendari

I don't really think that's true. Men's basketball and football, for example, bring in revenue many times higher than the cost of the programs for a small percentage of colleges in the US, which probably is used to subsidize other sports. At least at most D1 schools, they require nothing from the university besides players. And its also other men's sports that fall under this category. Men's squash is just as useless as women's basketball in this regard.

It would probably make colleges cheaper if we could cancel useless crap like women's lacrosse that ends up costing the students money.
corrections in bold. Remember that not all schools get thier games broadcast on TV, and make millions in merchandising. I think the schools that actuall break even or better with athletics is 5%. Title IX has caused more harm than good in most schools.

Well, some googling resulted in Text

Overall for Division I-A, 74 institutions reported that revenues exceeded expenditures.
In Division I-A programs, football and men's basketball continue to make profits for many institutions.
Sixty-four percent of football programs made a profit, a seven percent decline from the previous study.
Nearly three-fourths of Division I basketball programs report profits. Seventy-four Division I institutions reported that revenues exceeded expenses in men's basketball

There's a lot more there how some schools end up losing money, and a further breakdown. Remember, a lot more students attend big state universities than small private colleges. Many of those large universities are breaking even with athletics, and profiting on the big cash sports.

Ultimately, I agree. Title IX has done lots of harm, if students want sports that can't pay for themselves in the university they shouldn't be funded by the other students.

Sounds fair to me, and accurate. What's wrong with them pointing out the hypocrisy of Bush's actions: Taking care of his own health but not ensuring the proper health education for young Americans, by cutting funding for those programs and for not leading on some new initiatives to do so.
Are the Republicans better at PR, obviously, yes. But this is legit stuff you're poo-pooing.
We'll see how it all works out in the end.
Oh please. Try walking or jogging around the block, its free. Bush does itWhy are women entitled to sports programs that cost the rest of students money with rising tuition costs?






I'm in excellent shape there, bucky. It isn't always about the individual.


And the "Oh please" thing? See me sig.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Planning . . . preferrably central. Further, the Web is under utilized as a resource to bring providers (producers within a reasonable radius) and schools together. Further, some districts are so retarded that they run their food programs as semi-autonomous or fully outsourced. It's the very lack of control that produces such warped priorities in the kiddie food chain.

Before this past year, kindergartners (that's 5-6 yrs old) at my wife's school could go through the lunch line and purchase an armful of Lil' Debbie snack cakes. At the same time, one old hag almost had it out with my father-in-law b/c she refused to allow him to purchase a salad for a kid.

Oh . . . parenting sux . . . but it's hard to compete with the "consumer" culture. Morgan Spurlock's movie was a touch over the top but the general concepts are accurate. Unless you lock your kid in the basement, they will be inundated with media images that glamorize garbage 24/7. It's hard enough for vigilant two-parent households to have a fighting chance but it's a total disaster for kids of working single-parents.

So for the record, the DNC has identified a real problem. It's not Bush's fault overall but he hasn't helped.

Do you have a link to any district that has successfully managed such a policy? I know around here an apple is $.50 or so at the local shoprite, a $2 lunch can hardly be maintained under those costs even in bulk. My school district did outsource the school lunches to another company, at the board of ed meetings they mentioned how it saved the district money.

Blaming the media and corporations is the easy way to find excuses for your own shortcomings. I've known many parents, mine included, that were able to successfully teach their kids proper habits.

 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
I'm in excellent shape there, bucky. It isn't always about the individual.
Then what is it about? Mandatory physical education in school just gives the fatties a class to blow off. You think anyone really cares about gym?
 

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: arsbanned
I'm in excellent shape there, bucky. It isn't always about the individual.
Then what is it about? Mandatory physical education in school just gives the fatties a class to blow off. You think anyone really cares about gym?

That's because we don't actually grade PE anymore. You show up, you get an A. Maybe we should start grading it on performance.
 

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Planning . . . preferrably central. Further, the Web is under utilized as a resource to bring providers (producers within a reasonable radius) and schools together. Further, some districts are so retarded that they run their food programs as semi-autonomous or fully outsourced. It's the very lack of control that produces such warped priorities in the kiddie food chain.

Before this past year, kindergartners (that's 5-6 yrs old) at my wife's school could go through the lunch line and purchase an armful of Lil' Debbie snack cakes. At the same time, one old hag almost had it out with my father-in-law b/c she refused to allow him to purchase a salad for a kid.

Oh . . . parenting sux . . . but it's hard to compete with the "consumer" culture. Morgan Spurlock's movie was a touch over the top but the general concepts are accurate. Unless you lock your kid in the basement, they will be inundated with media images that glamorize garbage 24/7. It's hard enough for vigilant two-parent households to have a fighting chance but it's a total disaster for kids of working single-parents.

So for the record, the DNC has identified a real problem. It's not Bush's fault overall but he hasn't helped.

Do you have a link to any district that has successfully managed such a policy? I know around here an apple is $.50 or so at the local shoprite, a $2 lunch can hardly be maintained under those costs even in bulk. My school district did outsource the school lunches to another company, at the board of ed meetings they mentioned how it saved the district money.

Blaming the media and corporations is the easy way to find excuses for your own shortcomings. I've known many parents, mine included, that were able to successfully teach their kids proper habits.


Well, I'm not really concerned so much about the lunch as I am the snack foods and sodas. The lunches may not be the best, but they aren't why the kids are getting fat. Its cuase they're skipping the lunch and spending their money on junk food instead.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: zendari

I don't really think that's true. Men's basketball and football, for example, bring in revenue many times higher than the cost of the programs for a small percentage of colleges in the US, which probably is used to subsidize other sports. At least at most D1 schools, they require nothing from the university besides players. And its also other men's sports that fall under this category. Men's squash is just as useless as women's basketball in this regard.

It would probably make colleges cheaper if we could cancel useless crap like women's lacrosse that ends up costing the students money.
corrections in bold. Remember that not all schools get thier games broadcast on TV, and make millions in merchandising. I think the schools that actuall break even or better with athletics is 5%. Title IX has caused more harm than good in most schools.

Well, some googling resulted in Text

Overall for Division I-A, 74 institutions reported that revenues exceeded expenditures.
In Division I-A programs, football and men's basketball continue to make profits for many institutions.
Sixty-four percent of football programs made a profit, a seven percent decline from the previous study.
Nearly three-fourths of Division I basketball programs report profits. Seventy-four Division I institutions reported that revenues exceeded expenses in men's basketball

There's a lot more there how some schools end up losing money, and a further breakdown. Remember, a lot more students attend big state universities than small private colleges. Many of those large universities are breaking even with athletics, and profiting on the big cash sports.

Ultimately, I agree. Title IX has done lots of harm, if students want sports that can't pay for themselves in the university they shouldn't be funded by the other students.

Sounds fair to me, and accurate. What's wrong with them pointing out the hypocrisy of Bush's actions: Taking care of his own health but not ensuring the proper health education for young Americans, by cutting funding for those programs and for not leading on some new initiatives to do so.
Are the Republicans better at PR, obviously, yes. But this is legit stuff you're poo-pooing.
We'll see how it all works out in the end.
Oh please. Try walking or jogging around the block, its free. Bush does itWhy are women entitled to sports programs that cost the rest of students money with rising tuition costs?
NCAA Division 1-A represents what Percentage of colleges in the USA? Your looking at a tiny fraction of the overall picture, coincidentally, the one that makes all the money off of sports programs.

 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
ah, yes, as opposed to the RNC, who only spread false rumors about their opponents having illegitimate black babies and slandering war heroes' service records (I'm not talking about Kerry)