Mean-Spirited Action Against Children

Advertisement

Editor:

A remarkable contrast appeared in the Aug. 15 Roundup.

The paper did a feature story on a vivacious group of Christian adults at the local United Methodist Church who meet every week to bag weekend lunches for 65 students who may not have enough to eat before they get back to school.

It is just another remarkable story repeated so often in our wonderful region of local citizens opening their hearts and hands to help out when the need arises; in this case, making sure that children in poverty get enough to eat when they are not in school.

The same issue of the Roundup carried the bitter comments made by a local school board member, Shirley Dye, regarding children who come to school hungry or without ability to pay for lunch. Because of their poverty status, these children are entitled to benefit from the federally funded school lunch program which produces substantial improvement in academic performance.

Ms. Dye went into a tirade against the food for children program because she believes that it somehow absolves parents of their responsibilities. She has no sympathy for parents who are at or near poverty and who are so frequently unable to provide nutritious meals for their children. She is determined to punish them mercilessly.

So she decided that the best way to deal with this problem is to take the food away from the children: she voted against renewing the program for Payson area school children.

Now, this is a school board member who supposedly represents the heart of our community and supposedly has the wisdom to guide school administration for the education and welfare of our children.

It should be noted that Ms. Dye often chairs meetings of the local Tea Party and always starts the meetings with a prayer. And she supports another Tea Party member for an opening on the school board.

It is difficult to understand such a mean-spirited action against the children not only because we already pay for the food program through our taxes, but also because it is such a proven way to enable disadvantaged children to succeed in school. Some 70 percent of children in our district are eligible for the program.

Ms. Dye is intent on punishing the parents who are in poverty, blaming them for their situation, as if people choose to be poor or to have illnesses or to be trapped by other complex problems.

For those who do know her, Ms. Dye is a lovely person. But behind that appearance, at least in this instance, there lurked a mean-spirited, vengeful attitude that demonstrated a lack of concern for children and a dangerous and ideological self-righteousness that threatens the well-being of our children and of our educational system.

Are those the characteristics of people we want serving on our school board or other public offices?

It’s voting season, folks. Think deeply about the significance of your vote.

Raymond Spatti

Comments

Pat Randall 4 months ago

Why don't you all check out the facts about how many children Need the food and how much is thrown out because some take a lunch or have a lunch ticket. Go down and visit the cafeteria at breakfast or lunch time. Some of the kids just like the company in the cafeteria. 70 percent of the kids are not living in poverty and if they are maybe the parents should give up their cigarettes, drugs and alcohol.

1

Nancy Volz 4 months ago

Pat, Where did you find the information that the 70% figure was incorrect? Thank you.

1

Robbin Flowers 4 months ago

Pat, Again the cafeteria is the issue and how that is administrated. The thousands of village children are the issue, they are not responsible for their parents behaviors. I TAKES HEALTHY CHILDREN TO RAISE A VILLAGE. And, It takes a healthy community to raise healthy children, mentally/physically/spiritually.

1

Pat Randall 4 months ago

Nancy, Does the school get financial reports from all the students parents? What proof do you have about the 70% and where did you get your information? What have you and Robbin done to help? Have you talked to any of the kids about the food that is served to them? Do you have children in the school system? I had 5 grandchildren graduate and have 3 great grandchildren in school now. Two in grade school and one high school. All paying their own way, 2 from single parent homes. Check out the illegals that are attending school.

1

Nancy Volz 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I merely asked you where you found out the 70% was incorrect. That is all I asked, so I do not understand your anger at all. Good grief!

0

Donald Cline 3 months, 4 weeks ago

What is amazing to me is that people like Raymond Spatti and others can support armed robbery under color of law to pay for school lunches government is not authorized to pay for or tax us for, and have the unmitigated gall to call that "charity" and call people who object to it "mean-spirited." I wonder how much Spatti and his fellow critics of Shirley Dye have donated to the children's lunch program out of their own pockets? Not that it is any of my business, just as how much I donate in charity and to whom is none of their business. But neither is it their business to claim government robbery is "charity." It's charity if you give it out of the goodness of your heart; if it is mandated under penalty of law not authorized by our Constitution it is robbery under color of law, and people who advocate robbery are freaking socialist thugs who ought to be prosecuted for advocating government lawlessness.

1

Robbin Flowers 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Donald, I 100% agree with: "if it is mandated under penalty of law not authorized by our Constitution it is robbery under color of law, and people who advocate robbery are freaking socialist thugs who ought to be prosecuted for advocating government lawlessness."

LETS END THE THUGARY OF MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATE/CHURCH WEFARE NOW!!! WOO HOO!!!

0

Donald Cline 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I think you meant "thuggery" and you meant "welfare," and on that basis, with caveats reserved pending more specific information, I agree. There is no authority for mandated "welfare" in our Constitution, and there is no authority for taxation to pay for it.

1

Ted Paulk 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Do you pathetic old rich fat cats realize how selfish you are? How can anyone in their right mind be against feeding poor children? When is the last time you complainers were REALLY hungry...so hungry you could only think about food? You should be ashamed of yourselves equating feeding children to robbery. I will bet that each of you who are whining are receiving some sort of government benefit right now! Stop showing your mean side...

1

Donald Cline 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I am not an old rich fat cat, Ted Paulk, and there is nothing selfish about objecting to robbery at the point of government's gun. There is nothing selfish about my right to determine for myself who receives my charity and how much. On the other hand, there is everything CRIMINAL about you advocating robbery at the point of government's gun. If you told your buddy to "go rob that old rich fat cat over there" (who is neither old, nor rich, nor fat, but that is beside the point) you could be and should be arrested for conspiracy to commit robbery. But somehow you escape that proper fate by advocating government do it, where a percentage is scraped off the top by the fat cats your ilk put into office, and who then dole it out to whatever faction they think will return the most votes in the next election. You need to develop some personal principles, Ted, like a resolution to restrict yourself to honesty, integrity, industry, and direct your personal compassion for the poor from you own wallet to theirs, and keep your grasping hands out of mine. Folks with your mentality created those poverty-stricken kids by advocating socialism, Ted. If you had a clue about history you would know that socialism has NEVER helped anyone in the history of the planet. All it has done is destroy economies, destroy jobs, and destroy free will because government welfare always comes at a price.

0

Ted Paulk 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I still don't understand your weird thinking process...how is feeding poor children robbery and socialism? You mention "socialism" about 10 times in every nonsensical posting you make. I do support these programs as I told you many, many times before: I PAY TAXES and am happy for what I get in return. Socialism smoshalism!!!

1

Ronald Hamric 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Ted,

Just for your edification:

socialism noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (see utopian socialism). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, seeing socialism as a transition state between capitalism and communism, appropriated what they found useful in socialist movements to develop their “scientific socialism.” In the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the principal model of strictly centralized socialism, while Sweden and Denmark were well-known for their noncommunist socialism. See also collectivism, communitarianism, social democracy.

I know you probably do not see yourself identified in that Merrium Webster definition, but if you actully read what you post, you would come to understand why we frequently use that term and you as synonymous.

0

Ronald Hamric 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Ted,

Can you comprehend that NO ONE is advocating not taking care of kids that need it? It is you and your socialist ideology that will not accept the foolishness of the "Public Education System" being turned into the "parents" for EVERY kid under their charge. Why don't you quit the childishness, and address the issue? It might surprise you just how much you and I have in common regards our "growing up", but I'm not certain how you came to accept the premise that the Federal Government is supposed to be the tit at which every citizen nurses. Do you really have that much of a problem with the precepts that this nation was founded upon? The very same precepts that you swore "To protect and Defend" when you did your stint in the military?

Now don't let us all down. Go ahead with your name calling and demonizing since you cannot articulate a rational debate on the facts.

0

Donald Cline 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I seriously doubt that Ted can comprehend that, Ronald; he apparently has no education beyond the sophomore level and probably thinks we would all be rich if government just printed more money and passed it out to everyone.

0

Ted Paulk 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I don't know why I bother Donald but FYI...BS Texas A&M 1971 History and Psychology major. AA Central Wyoming College, 1973 , Law Enforcement. U.S. Army 1966-1968 including 18 months in Viet Nam...I think I've paid my dues along with my taxes.

1

Ronald Hamric 3 months, 4 weeks ago

For those that are quick to attack Mrs. Dye for her concerns need to do a little research. You may wish to start with this article :http://educationnext.org/fraud-in-the-lunchroom/ And if you really have an interest in the truth (and truly needy kids), there are many more such articles you may wish to read to enlighten the facts of the debate.

The thrust of that article is REALLY all Mrs Dye was inferring with her comments. But don't expect the Left to really care about all the fraud in thier "feel good" programs, or let "facts" get in the way of emotion.

1

Donald Cline 3 months, 3 weeks ago

They can't let facts get in the way of their faux emotion; that would undermine their actual agenda, which has nothing whatever to do with helping children get enough to eat. It has everything to do with creating dependents that cannot exist on their own two feet without receiving a percentage of the government loot stolen from the productive people. Such people are so easy to manipulate and lead around by the nose. Ted Paulk is a prime example.

0

Robbin Flowers 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Ronald, et. al., You nailed it on the head! "FRAUD IN THE LUNCHROOM." That is the core issue. How many levels does the fraud occur on? This is another web of "control" by 10 multi-national corporations. WHY??? = It is my understanding that serious malnutrition was going on around the world (worse than today) and men of great responsibility had a meeting and they decided to "Tackle World Hunger." A great goal, wouldn't you agree? But, something went horribly wrong along the way. This idea is to identify what went wrong? Who, How, What, When and Where? P.S. The corruption takes place on every level I am capable of seeing. What a tangled web! With the right intention = definitely repairable;-)

The world only has a security net of a10 year food supply if people who can, do not start growing their own food and taking some responsibility for producing and feeding themselves. I almost feel sorry for the great men who decided to tackle this all on their own, because now they are in over their heads.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.