re: Should we copy the Japanese school lunch program? (Yes, obviously we should)

quote:

---

In 2020, > 50% of Dems believed Hunter's Laptop was Russian disinfo. I'd hazard a wild guess that number remains ridiculously high 5ys after the fact.

---

Sure it does, because Trump is POTUS again five years later. So the subject of the conspiracy theory—the "Visible Villain" as they say in entertainment—is still right in front of them affecting their lives.

If COVID was still going on with as many government lockdowns and such—the right's "Visible Villain" in that context—the number polled would probably be even higher now than it was then.

quote:

---

Prima facie, Gates' proposal was akin to the Chinese CCP program requiring a mandatory phone tracking app on personal phones, without which no access to public facilities, groceries, shopping, etc was allowed.

So Gates' did want to use a tracking chip. It would simply have been via cell phone rather than implantation.

---

Guaranteed not 10% of the people who voted yes in that poll knew any of that.

Tell you what. If you want me to concede that the left is much farther down the populist idiot trail than the right, I'll do that. They've got several decades head start...the right has only succumbed over the last 12-15 years or so.

But I don't see how you can read this board every day and not come to the conclusion that it's catching up real fast.

It would be interesting to know what you (powerman) think the government shouldn’t fund. A general description should do.

quote:

---

we're already in the school lunch business. If we're going to do it we might as well do it better. Unless you prefer us to fund things and then do a shitty job of running the program. Sounds counterproductive if you ask me.

---

do you have kids? do they go to public schools are they getting federally funded school lunches? if that answer is no why the he11 do you care and if that answer is yes then congrats son you're poor! did you plan to be poor? are you proud of being poor? do you think there's some sort of nobility in being poor.

my son is 30, my daughter 25, both graduated from college, both launched into career's neither were eligible for federal free school lunch program.

quote:

---

We're already in the education business and we're already in the school lunch business. If we're going to do it we might as well do it better.

---

Your name calling in this thread has fallen flat due to exactly what I'm about to point out, as you have finally opened the door wide on it.

This whole thread you've been repeating a basic theme over and over. Namely, that anybody who wants to maintain the status quo is a retarded ape.

But here you are appealing to maintaining the status quo. "We're already in the business of education and lunches, so..."

So what? We can't not be in those businesses? We should change the status quo with regard to everything else, but we can't change the status quo with regard to that? We're already there, so we should just keep coasting on it?

That's why your name calling here has fallen flat.

You really want to change the status quo? Since you've equated being willing to do so this whole time with greater intelligence?

Great, let's do it.

First of all, I don't see how it can possibly be constitutional for the government to be able to force free citizens to go to school 8 hours a day for 13 years. Shaving off some for the fact that elementary school kids may not spend a full 8 hours, let's call that 15,000 hours of what amounts to government incarceration. You are not free to not be there. That equates to a jail sentence of a year and 3/4. For completely innocent people, without any due process or having committed any crime.

In addition to being unconstitutional, compulsory attendance—probably more than any other single factor—causes the vast majority of the problems we have in schools. If children and parents do not care about the child actually learning, they won't. No matter what the school does. And they then suck up resources and distract other students and cause disciplinary problems, etc., etc.

So Reform Number One: Stop compulsory attendance. If certain citizens do not want to send their children to school, they don't have to, nor do they have to show that they are educating them at home. What becomes of them at that point is up to them.

And before you clutch pearls and cry about an illiterate society, we already have that. 54% of American adults now read below a sixth grade level. Did you know that?

By the DOE's own numbers, almost 20% of high school graduates (graduates...not counting those who dropped out or otherwise did not graduate) are functionally illiterate.

That's with the system we have now. Where everyone is forced to go to school.

I propose that by making school optional and creating actual standards for conduct and performance, school would become something citizens wanted to do rather than something they had to do. Especially if you made it a little exclusive. Suggest to single moms on welfare that their child might not qualify to be part of the public educational system rather than telling them they have to send them by force of law and I predict you would see the majority of them protesting in the streets for the opportunity rather than what happens now, which is lax compliance and zero support for making sure that the child actually learns in school and an oppositional attitude towards everyone at the school. All of these laws mandating that the state owes Little Bastard this and that and the other thing with regard to education should vanish, and the culture should shift to, "We only have so many spots at the local public school this fall. Better sign up now to make sure you have a place, and better not lose your spot during the year due to lack of performance or poor conduct or attendance. There will be a waiting list and if this isn't right for you, someone else will be glad to take the opportunity."

And then do it. If they won't behave, kick them out. If they show up late all the time or have crappy attendance, kick them out. If they make no effort to progress, kick them out.

Reform Number Two: There is simply no reason given the current state of technology that students past about 6th grade should have to physically be present in school for every course and subject. Colleges are relying more and more on online courses and lower education should too.

Once they learn to read and do basic math, in-person attendance should only be required for certain things. Labs, music and art and shop courses and the like. Everything else should be online, work at your own pace, and the curriculum should be developed nationally and every child should have exactly the same material and exams. You then eliminate any difference in the quality of instruction. The inner city child gets the same instruction as the suburban child. And it should be rigorous.

Teachers could be available as tutors only for these online classes. Stuck and having issues? Sign up online for an appointment with a tutor. Which could also be done virtually.

So we just saved no telling how much money on facilities, equipment, administrative staff, and teacher's salaries, as you'd need far fewer tutors than you would teachers. And that's true even if the state bought each student a laptop every 3-4 years and paid for their internet access.

Now let's talk about the kids 6th grade and below. I know from parents home schooling that the lessons these children do can be accomplished in 4 hours. It doesn't take 6-8. Once the class sizes are smaller (and they would be with school no longer being compulsory and kids being kicked out for not meeting standards) the elementary instruction should be streamlined and school meals shouldn't be necessary. Welfare needs to be de-coupled from public education. It shouldn't be a babysitting service, a welfare service, etc., it should be an educational service.

If you want to offer meals for children, do it some other way.

So, school lunch problem solved.

Now.

If your response to that is, "That's all well and great, but none of that will ever happen," now you are agreeing with the rest of us with regard to your proposed reform. Now you get it. Now you understand why we're underwhelmed with your plan. Because the kids won't eat it. It won't happen.

And I know at this point you will want to cry, "But we should at least TRYYYYYYY." O.k. Then let's try what I proposed. Because I think it would have much greater implications and benefits long term, AND it solves the school lunch issue.

quote:

---

E.g., IMO the left would run from "populism" as if it was a leper colony.

---

BLM was a textbook populist movement.

quote:

---

BLM was a textbook populist movement.

---

And it's self-admittedly Marxist.

There you go.

quote:

---

So what? It's Orwellian naming for populism taken to a revolutionary extreme

---

I think you missed the point. Socialism and populism are very different in application.

quote:

---

Requisite schooling is a states rights issue. But more importantly, it's a humanitarian issue -- if it's done well. Your chief complaint seems to be that US education is not done well. On that point, we strongly agree.

IMO - Curriculum matched to capacity and need, along with classroom discipline should be the priorities. Classrooms should be sorted by academic performance, intellect. Curriculum should be targeted accordingly. E.g., By latter 2-3yrs of HS, the advanced classes would be AP. The lower classes would focus on blue collar training and job opportunities. Home economics (savings, credit cards, loans, home ownership, budgeting, etc.) would be obligatory for all students.

---

i agree with this and agree that prolly should allow parents to choose to send their kids or not but on the point of US education not being done well.....

to be fair if you look at Asian Americans and White Americans.....they test really high. Asian Americans test better than any country on earth and white Americans rank #4, behind Asian Americans, Singapore and 1 other country.

quote:

---

I think you missed the point. Socialism and populism are very different in application.

---

No, they aren't. That's what you seem to be missing.

You seem to think that as long as there's a government structure, the society can't be structured around a populist ideal. That they are somehow mutually exclusive. That's simply not true.

There's no reason you can't have a socialist society that is also a 100% democratic society. And I mean a 100% democratic society...not even a representative one. I mean a "We set policy by a majority show of hands" society.