I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.

They can keep food warm, but cannot cook on a stovetop. I'm not sure
whether they have regular ovens, convection, or just warming ovens.

Dinner is at 6:00; they want the food there by 5:30; it will take me
half an hour to get there and lug my stuff in to the school. So
basically, I have to cook my pasta over an hour before it will be
eaten

So...what's the best way for me (and the other pasta volunteers) to
keep the food hot, deliver it without hurting ourselves, and have the
pasta not turn out mushy and totally stuck together? They want the
sauce separate from the pasta.

Any ideas or experiences? I know it's kind of late to ask, but
figured whatever wisdom I can glean tonight will help, and anything
that comes later will be great to know for the future.

Thanks!
Chris

On Jun 11, 3:36*pm, Chris > wrote:
> I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
> meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.
>
> They can keep food warm, but cannot cook on a stovetop. *I'm not sure
> whether they have regular ovens, convection, or just warming ovens.
>
> Dinner is at 6:00; they want the food there by 5:30; it will take me
> half an hour to get there and lug my stuff in to the school. *So
> basically, I have to cook my pasta over an hour before it will be
> eaten
>
> So...what's the best way for me (and the other pasta volunteers) to
> keep the food hot, deliver it without hurting ourselves, and have the
> pasta not turn out mushy and totally stuck together? *They want the
> sauce separate from the pasta.
>
> Any ideas or experiences? *I know it's kind of late to ask, but
> figured whatever wisdom I can glean tonight will help, and anything
> that comes later will be great to know for the future.
>
Find out immediately if they have facilities to boil water. If so,
you can cook the pasta, drain it, toss it with a little oil, transport
it, and reheat it in boiling water. Pastorio used to claim quite
vociferously that pre-cooked, reheated pasta was great. He was blind
to reality but it gives you a guideline.

If they can't boil water for reheating purposes, I don't have any
idea. Maybe there are steam tables and you can use hot, if not
boiling water.... -aem

Chris said...

> I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
> meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.
>
> They can keep food warm, but cannot cook on a stovetop. I'm not sure
> whether they have regular ovens, convection, or just warming ovens.
>
> Dinner is at 6:00; they want the food there by 5:30; it will take me
> half an hour to get there and lug my stuff in to the school. So
> basically, I have to cook my pasta over an hour before it will be
> eaten
>
> So...what's the best way for me (and the other pasta volunteers) to
> keep the food hot, deliver it without hurting ourselves, and have the
> pasta not turn out mushy and totally stuck together? They want the
> sauce separate from the pasta.
>
> Any ideas or experiences? I know it's kind of late to ask, but
> figured whatever wisdom I can glean tonight will help, and anything
> that comes later will be great to know for the future.
>
> Thanks!
> Chris


What? A school without a full cafeteria?

Anyway... I'd make the pasta al dente and put it into a large disposable
aluminum roasting pan (or two, depending) add in a fair amount of the pasta
water and cover with foil. Use another foil pan for the meatballs. Put the
sauce in a gallon water jug. No clean up!

Upon arrival, dial up the school on your cell phone and have them send one
of the students to come to your car with a wheeled library (?) lab (?) cart
and let them muscle it to the cafeteria for you.

Or not.

Best,

Andy

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
> meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.
>
> They can keep food warm, but cannot cook on a stovetop. I'm not sure
> whether they have regular ovens, convection, or just warming ovens.
>
> Dinner is at 6:00; they want the food there by 5:30; it will take me
> half an hour to get there and lug my stuff in to the school. So
> basically, I have to cook my pasta over an hour before it will be
> eaten
>
> So...what's the best way for me (and the other pasta volunteers) to
> keep the food hot, deliver it without hurting ourselves, and have the
> pasta not turn out mushy and totally stuck together? They want the
> sauce separate from the pasta.
>
> Any ideas or experiences? I know it's kind of late to ask, but
> figured whatever wisdom I can glean tonight will help, and anything
> that comes later will be great to know for the future.
>
> Thanks!
> Chris

For how many?

aem wrote:
> Find out immediately if they have facilities to boil water. If so,
> you can cook the pasta, drain it, toss it with a little oil, transport
> it, and reheat it in boiling water. Pastorio used to claim quite
> vociferously that pre-cooked, reheated pasta was great. He was blind
> to reality but it gives you a guideline.
>
> If they can't boil water for reheating purposes, I don't have any
> idea. Maybe there are steam tables and you can use hot, if not
> boiling water.... -aem
>

Chris, please be prepared for them to take your well made spaghetti
sauce, and mix it in a vat with everyone else's. Just be prepared for
this to happen. Yes, I know it hurts. lol


Becca

Also, I was thinking, use regular spaghetti, not vermicelli or angel hair,
etc., and it will feed more students with eyes sometimes bigger than their
stomachs with less going to waste if they can't finish their plates.

???

Best,

Andy

On Jun 11, 6:36*pm, Chris > wrote:
> I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
> meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.
>
> They can keep food warm, but cannot cook on a stovetop. *I'm not sure
> whether they have regular ovens, convection, or just warming ovens.
>
> Dinner is at 6:00; they want the food there by 5:30; it will take me
> half an hour to get there and lug my stuff in to the school. *So
> basically, I have to cook my pasta over an hour before it will be
> eaten
>
> So...what's the best way for me (and the other pasta volunteers) to
> keep the food hot, deliver it without hurting ourselves, and have the
> pasta not turn out mushy and totally stuck together? *They want the
> sauce separate from the pasta.



I'd put in enough sauce to keep the pasta separated. Why do they want
it brought in this way?

Thinking it over, I'd say hang 'em and bring the whole mess in a crock
pot where I'd have it simmering away all day and unplug just before
going. The utter nerve.....

I once worked with a guy who served an Italian dinner to 80 ppl. in an
hour and a half. He managed with four massive pots on the stove for
the spaghet, staggered a batch every ten minutes. I never would've
attempted it. I don't remember how he bailed it out tho and reserved
the water. He had me busy making salads.

Almost as bad a fish fry for 100 and trying to keep up with the
French Fries demand. We had two deep commercial size fryers tho which
made it all possible. Many hungry men in line wanted to know why the
holdup. You could tell they weren't the cooks in their houses. Made
to order was a foreign phrase.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:04:20 -0500, Andy > wrote:

>What? A school without a full cafeteria?

Not unusual in this day and age, unfortunately. Cooking kitchens are
a thing of the past.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Andy wrote:

>
>
> What? A school without a full cafeteria?
>

Pretty common, there is a large plant near here that makes frozen "meals
" for most of the local schools who just heat & serve big box style.


> Anyway... I'd make the pasta al dente and put it into a large disposable
> aluminum roasting pan (or two, depending) add in a fair amount of the pasta
> water and cover with foil. Use another foil pan for the meatballs. Put the
> sauce in a gallon water jug. No clean up!
>
> Upon arrival, dial up the school on your cell phone and have them send one
> of the students to come to your car with a wheeled library (?) lab (?) cart
> and let them muscle it to the cafeteria for you.
>
> Or not.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

Andy wrote:


> What? A school without a full cafeteria?

Spent much time around schools in the last couple of decades?

K thru 12, our schools are supplied by an outside contractor. Some of
the stuff is decent, most is crap unless you're fond of things like
hamburgers floating in hot water and bruised square apples (the
ironically named "Red Delicious").

My son will be starting high school next year, my daughter finished high
school a semester early and has been attending a local college and I
still pack their lunches most days.

>> I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
>> meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.

That is a risky dish....I am positive that some child will have a
gluten reaction.....a tomato reaction....a dairy reaction.....an
oregano reaction....a mushroom reaction.....an oil in the water
reaction......a salt reaction.....a green pepper reaction......a parm
cheese reaction......a garlic reaction.

I would take boiled water and label the contents with the water
chemistry warnings: Consume at your own risk....boiled water was used
in the preparation of this dish.

Becca wrote:
> aem wrote:
>> Find out immediately if they have facilities to boil water. If so,
>> you can cook the pasta, drain it, toss it with a little oil, transport
>> it, and reheat it in boiling water. Pastorio used to claim quite
>> vociferously that pre-cooked, reheated pasta was great. He was blind
>> to reality but it gives you a guideline.
>>
>> If they can't boil water for reheating purposes, I don't have any
>> idea. Maybe there are steam tables and you can use hot, if not
>> boiling water.... -aem
>>
>
> Chris, please be prepared for them to take your well made spaghetti
> sauce, and mix it in a vat with everyone else's. Just be prepared for
> this to happen. Yes, I know it hurts. lol
>
>
> Becca
And, if they're selling dinners they will water it down if more people
show up than anticipated. At least they always did when our kids were in
school.

Mr. Bill wrote:
>>> I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
>>> meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.
>
> That is a risky dish....I am positive that some child will have a
> gluten reaction.....a tomato reaction....a dairy reaction.....an
> oregano reaction....a mushroom reaction.....an oil in the water
> reaction......a salt reaction.....a green pepper reaction......a parm
> cheese reaction......a garlic reaction.
>
> I would take boiled water and label the contents with the water
> chemistry warnings: Consume at your own risk....boiled water was used
> in the preparation of this dish.
>
>
>

Lucky for you he wasn't planning to take a chicken peanut satay dish...
if might have had a seizure or something.

Bob

wrote:
>My son will be starting high school next year, my daughter finished high
>school a semester early and has been attending a local college and I
>still pack their lunches most days.

Being Dominican, Puerto Rican and Italian by ancestry, I could never get used
to the crappy food that always passed for lunch in every school I attended. My
mother tried to get me to eat that swill for a few months during one year, but
I resisted so vehemently that she gave up and packed my lunches until I
graduated high school. When I got tired of sandwiches as a teenager, her
deletable lunches became even simpler to make; all she had to do was put the
previous night's leftovers in a container. I was the envy of everyone in that
cafeteria.

Orlando

wrote:
>Lucky for you he wasn't planning to take a chicken peanut satay dish...
>if might have had a seizure or something.

Really, can't schools get themselves sufficiently organized to provide
appropriate foods for various intolerances without ruining every meal by
covering their butts? I'm sure that if we spent just a little less in Iraq,
we'd have enough money to make sure that every American child eats according to
what his/her body can handle. I know we could do it.

Orlando

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:01:16 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> wrote:

wrote:
>>Lucky for you he wasn't planning to take a chicken peanut satay dish...
>>if might have had a seizure or something.
>
>Really, can't schools get themselves sufficiently organized to provide
>appropriate foods for various intolerances without ruining every meal by
>covering their butts? I'm sure that if we spent just a little less in Iraq,
>we'd have enough money to make sure that every American child eats according to
>what his/her body can handle. I know we could do it.
>
>Orlando

Feed your own kids.....It's that simple.

Lou

wrote:
>Feed your own kids.....It's that simple.

Come on, dude, we all know that certain neglectful, drug addicted or otherwise
incompetent parents don't have enough wherewithal to feed their children.
Unfortunately, making them is biologically easier than learning to cook for
them. Are we supposed to let children starve because their parents couldn't
refrain from unprotected sex until they stabilized their lives?

Orlando

On Jun 11, 10:07*pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
> wrote:
> >Feed your own kids.....It's that simple.
>
> Come on, dude, we all know that certain neglectful, drug addicted or otherwise
> incompetent parents don't have enough wherewithal to feed their children.
> Unfortunately, making them is biologically easier than learning to cook for
> them. Are we supposed to let children starve because their parents couldn't
> refrain from unprotected sex until they stabilized their lives?

Forced--or at least heavily incentivized--sterilization has gotten a
bad rap. Maybe offer them the complete, unedited DVD collections of
Judge Judy and Geraldo. Heck, even throw in Maury.
Act today and we'll throw in a year's supply of potato chips and
sodapop!
>
> Orlando

--Bryan

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> Can you get a big chafing dish and some sterno or even candles? Those
> sterno cans can generate a lot of heat.
>
>
Nowadays there are all types/sizes of electric chafing dishes/cook pots...
it's pretty simple to cook pasta in a pot of water on an electric
hotplate... sauce can be served from a slowcooker. so can precooked pasta.

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> wrote:
>> Lucky for you he wasn't planning to take a chicken peanut satay dish...
>> if might have had a seizure or something.
>
> Really, can't schools get themselves sufficiently organized to provide
> appropriate foods for various intolerances without ruining every meal by
> covering their butts? I'm sure that if we spent just a little less in Iraq,
> we'd have enough money to make sure that every American child eats according to
> what his/her body can handle. I know we could do it.
>
> Orlando

I think that's a hellafa lot of burden to place on already over worked
school districts. Although I have fond memories of cooked from scratch
lunchroom food. We might have pooh-poohed it, but i think for the most
part it was acceptable by most. It wasn't all that long ago (a couple
of generations?) that people were assumed to feed themselves and their
kids (or not as the case may be) and schools weren't all in the food
business.

Chris wrote:

> I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
> meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.
>
> They can keep food warm, but cannot cook on a stovetop. I'm not sure
> whether they have regular ovens, convection, or just warming ovens.
>
> Dinner is at 6:00; they want the food there by 5:30; it will take me
> half an hour to get there and lug my stuff in to the school. So
> basically, I have to cook my pasta over an hour before it will be
> eaten

In a situation like that one, I'd never aim for pasta: pasta cooked an hour
before consumption has no chances of being good, no matter how you cook and
sotre it. But if this is what they want from you, I'd say... call Barilla in

60 seconds for a steaming hot dish of pasta with it's dressing, and note the
blue paper glasses... stylish:

http://parma.repubblica.it/dettaglio...ne=EdRegionale
--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

On Jun 11, 3:36*pm, Chris > wrote:
> I have to bring spaghetti and meatballs (pasta separate from sauce +
> meatballs) to a dinner at my son's school tomorrow night.
>
> They can keep food warm, but cannot cook on a stovetop. *I'm not sure
> whether they have regular ovens, convection, or just warming ovens.
>
> Dinner is at 6:00; they want the food there by 5:30; it will take me
> half an hour to get there and lug my stuff in to the school. *So
> basically, I have to cook my pasta over an hour before it will be
> eaten
>
> So...what's the best way for me (and the other pasta volunteers) to
> keep the food hot, deliver it without hurting ourselves, and have the
> pasta not turn out mushy and totally stuck together? *They want the
> sauce separate from the pasta.
>
> Any ideas or experiences? *I know it's kind of late to ask, but
> figured whatever wisdom I can glean tonight will help, and anything
> that comes later will be great to know for the future.
>
> Thanks!
> Chris

Most restaurants precook their pasta and heat it by running it under
hot water...

"Goomba" wrote:
> Orlando Enrique Fool wrote:
>> bob.muncie wrote:
>>>
>>> Lucky for you he wasn't planning to take a chicken peanut satay dish...
>>> if might have had a seizure or something.
>>
>> Really, can't schools get themselves sufficiently organized to provide
>> appropriate foods for various intolerances without ruining every meal by
>> covering their butts? I'm sure that if we spent just a little less in
>> Iraq, we'd have enough money to make sure that every American child eats
>> according to what his/her body can handle. I know we could do it.

You haven't a clue. Kids should arrive at school already fed, given a
choice of Ensure for lunch, and eat when they arrive home... schools are not
restaurants.

> I think that's a hellafa lot of burden to place on already over worked
> school districts. Although I have fond memories of cooked from scratch
> lunchroom food. We might have pooh-poohed it, but i think for the most
> part it was acceptable by most. It wasn't all that long ago (a couple of
> generations?) that people were assumed to feed themselves and their kids
> (or not as the case may be) and schools weren't all in the food business.

It wasn't that parents weren't willing to feed their kids lunch, many did
send their kids to school with a lunchbox, many still do. I remember school
cafeteria lunches being as good as the best home cooking; there was beef
stew, spaghetti w/meat sauce, chicken chow mein, chicken ala king, meat
loaf, pot roast, all sorts of hearty soups, fresh vegetables, fresh fruit,
freshly baked desserts, milk, juice, etc... one of my favorites was breaded
cubed veal steak with mashed, veggies, and gravy, there were no junk foods
and the lunch room matrons made sure we ate, anyone didn't the school nurse
was apprised and the parent sent for... in the lower grades those who signed
up for hot lunch paid for the entire term in advance, in the 1940s it came
to like 35¢/week. Today's school lunches are no different from fast food
and just as costly, mostly lousy mystery meat burgers, fries, frozen mini
pizza, packaged cakes, and sugery sodas... I know for a fact that most kids
today toss their lunch in the garbage, and I can't blame them. I ate the
school hot lunches from grade school all through high school, I enjoyed
it... I especially liked the soups, not out of a can either. I don't
remember any kids who ate in the hot lunch lunchroom having food issues.
Those that did have a medical condition requiring a special diet it was
their parent's responsibility, not the school, and as it should be. And it
has not a whit to do with funding... no school, public or private, can take
responsibility for every medical condition, a school is for learning;
academic, vocational, and social skills... a school is not a hospital. I
think schools do a damn good job of monitoring student medical issues, but
they cannot incarcerate so they cannot observe and control a child 24/7... a
school can monitor a child's food intake purty darn good while school is in
session, but then they leave. Even a hospital can't watch an otherwise
healthy active kid 24/7, not even a prison can. Monitoring a kid's diet or
any other special needs) has nothing to do with schools or funding, it has
all to do with the parents... those parents who are unwilling/unable there
are special foster care agencies who will. Schools can no more force a kid
what to learn as force a kid what to eat.

I wouldn't be too concerned with school cafeteria food... better to watch
how kids share foods, taking bites out of each others food, then they come
down with all sorts of diseases. Todays kids at 10-11 kiss and swap spit,
12 year old girls are prego, and give birth to drug addicted babies. The
little brats carry knives and bring guns to school. And yoose wanna worry
about feeding them, let them eat shit!

wrote:
>I think that's a hellafa lot of burden to place on already over worked
>school districts. Although I have fond memories of cooked from scratch
>lunchroom food. We might have pooh-poohed it, but i think for the most
>part it was acceptable by most. It wasn't all that long ago (a couple
>of generations?) that people were assumed to feed themselves and their
>kids (or not as the case may be) and schools weren't all in the food
>business.


If such radical notions as parental licensing, much more comprehensive sex
education or even compulsory sterilization in some cases were not deemed so
socially odious, we'd have a good chance of fostering greater parental
responsibility. But, as it is, the bottom line is that too many people have
procreating without the capacity to care for their offspring, and many social
sectors are having to step in an fill in the gaps.

Orlando

On Jun 12, 12:22*pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
> wrote:
> >I think that's a hellafa lot of burden to place on already over worked
> >school districts. Although I have fond memories of cooked from scratch
> >lunchroom food. We might have pooh-poohed it, but i think for the most
> >part it was acceptable by most. *It wasn't all that long ago (a couple
> >of generations?) that people were assumed to feed themselves and their
> >kids (or not as the case may be) and schools weren't all in the food
> >business.

My son's school grows vegetables. Next year they are planning on
incorporating both their produce and other locally grown produce into
their school lunches:
http://www.mrhsd.org/gardens/elementary_home.html
>
> If such radical notions as parental licensing, much more comprehensive sex
> education or even compulsory sterilization in some cases were
> not deemed so socially odious, we'd have a good chance of fostering
> greater parental responsibility.
> But, as it is, the bottom line is that too many people have
> procreating without the capacity to care for their offspring, and many social
> sectors are having to step in an fill in the gaps.

Human population will be limited. The question is, by what? Death
from disease? Starvation? Wars and other mass killings? Compared to
those, compulsory sterilization and indeed eugenics looks pretty good.
>
> Orlando

--Bryan

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> wrote:
>> Feed your own kids.....It's that simple.
>
> Come on, dude, we all know that certain neglectful, drug addicted or
> otherwise incompetent parents don't have enough wherewithal to feed
> their children. Unfortunately, making them is biologically easier
> than learning to cook for them. Are we supposed to let children
> starve because their parents couldn't refrain from unprotected sex
> until they stabilized their lives?


Yep...the poor should be put to doing tasks at WORK farms...and if they
can't hack it they should be SHOT...


--
Best
Greg

brooklyn1 wrote:

[...]

> I wouldn't be too concerned with school cafeteria food... better to
> watch how kids share foods, taking bites out of each others food,
> then they come down with all sorts of diseases. Todays kids at 10-11
> kiss and swap spit, 12 year old girls are prego, and give birth to
> drug addicted babies.


And these daze the kidz don't even consider fellatio "sex"...!!!


The little brats carry knives and bring guns
> to school. And yoose wanna worry about feeding them, let them eat
> shit!


Yup...some of these lil' pukes would better of in reform school.

Additionally, when I was a wee sprite (late 50's - early 60's) it was
considered a mark of shame if the parents couldn't afford the fee for the
school lunches. There was a "fund" of sorts for the really desperate, but
few took advantage of this. Even the poorest of the poor - and we had quite
a few - managed to at least bring a lunch to school, even if it only
consisted of bread and butter sammiches and an apple picked from the tree or
some such (everybody had apple trees, etc....)...anything to avoid the
stigma of not being able to provide for their kids, now matter how modest
the lunches were. Coupla times we were low on funds, my grandmother was a
school teacher and she offered to my folks to pay for our school lunches and
milk for a coupla weeks, but no go, even that modest charity was too
humiliating to consider. We ate bread and butter sammiches for a few days,
we sucked it up until things got better...

Unfortunately, the opposite is true today. Another reason that the "Great
Society" programs initiated in the 60's have not helped the poor, but in
fact have *perpetuated" poverty's vicious cycle...those social welfare
programs were/are a *great* tragedy, as they reward sloth and stifle
initiative.


--
Best
Greg

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> wrote:
>> I think that's a hellafa lot of burden to place on already over
>> worked school districts. Although I have fond memories of cooked
>> from scratch lunchroom food. We might have pooh-poohed it, but i
>> think for the most part it was acceptable by most. It wasn't all
>> that long ago (a couple of generations?) that people were assumed to
>> feed themselves and their kids (or not as the case may be) and
>> schools weren't all in the food business.
>
>
> If such radical notions as parental licensing, much more
> comprehensive sex education or even compulsory sterilization in some
> cases were not deemed so socially odious, we'd have a good chance of
> fostering greater parental responsibility. But, as it is, the bottom
> line is that too many people have procreating without the capacity to
> care for their offspring, and many social sectors are having to step
> in an fill in the gaps.


Those "social sectors" are *the* problem. Folx know they can slack off and
some government agency can "step in" with multifarious sorts of aid, and
that simply perpetuates the problem. It creates a culture of dependence...


--
Best
Greg

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> wrote:
>>I think that's a hellafa lot of burden to place on already over worked
>>school districts. Although I have fond memories of cooked from scratch
>>lunchroom food. We might have pooh-poohed it, but i think for the most
>>part it was acceptable by most. It wasn't all that long ago (a couple
>>of generations?) that people were assumed to feed themselves and their
>>kids (or not as the case may be) and schools weren't all in the food
>>business.
>
>
> If such radical notions as parental licensing, much more comprehensive sex
> education or even compulsory sterilization in some cases were not deemed
> so
> socially odious, we'd have a good chance of fostering greater parental
> responsibility. But, as it is, the bottom line is that too many people
> have
> procreating without the capacity to care for their offspring, and many
> social
> sectors are having to step in an fill in the gaps.
>
>
Yep, those government programs that "step in" are called welfare and
prison... there is no way to legislate a conscience in those who don't care
for themselves let alone others... it's far better for society as a whole to
abandon the miscreants and instead concentrate efforts and resources on
those who are appreciative of greater learning who will eventually give back
more than they receieved... in the finality a far, FAR wiser investment than
throwing good money after bad..

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> If such radical notions as parental licensing, much more comprehensive sex
> education or even compulsory sterilization in some cases were not deemed so
> socially odious, we'd have a good chance of fostering greater parental
> responsibility. But, as it is, the bottom line is that too many people have
> procreating without the capacity to care for their offspring, and many social
> sectors are having to step in an fill in the gaps.
>
> Orlando

"social sectors" doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the public
schools though.

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:

> If such radical notions as parental licensing, much more comprehensive
> sex education or even compulsory sterilization in some cases were not
> deemed so socially odious, we'd have a good chance of fostering
> greater parental responsibility.

There are reasons why not doing that is the case. And in the end, we are
the better for not stepping into the quagmire where we empower an elite to
decide the fate of all citizens.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:57:10 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:
>
>> If such radical notions as parental licensing, much more comprehensive
>> sex education or even compulsory sterilization in some cases were not
>> deemed so socially odious, we'd have a good chance of fostering
>> greater parental responsibility.
>
>There are reasons why not doing that is the case.

Please list a few.

>And in the end, we are the better for not stepping into the quagmire where we
>empower an elite to decide the fate of all citizens.

So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate of
those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?
>
>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

You're a freak. Do you even know how to cook? All you ever do is
talk your liberal bullshit. Your act might be easier to tolerate if
you got involved in cooking threads once in awhile but I've not seen
them.

Lou

Lou Decruss > wrote in
:

>>> If such radical notions as parental licensing, much more
>>> comprehensive sex education or even compulsory sterilization in some
>>> cases were not deemed so socially odious, we'd have a good chance of
>>> fostering greater parental responsibility.
>>
>>There are reasons why not doing that is the case.
>
> Please list a few.

People have rights, no matter how frustrating it is for you. Putting an
elite in charge is a BAD idea. Fascism is SO 20th century.

>>And in the end, we are the better for not stepping into the quagmire
>>where we empower an elite to decide the fate of all citizens.
>
> So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate of
> those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?

No, I'm saying those who have dreams should follow them but not insist
others do the same.

>>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>
> You're a freak. Do you even know how to cook? All you ever do is
> talk your liberal

Boy, are you ever off the track there.

> bullshit. Your act might be easier to tolerate if
> you got involved in cooking threads once in awhile but I've not seen
> them.

I am involved in cooking threads as it suits me. This is an unmoderated
newsgroup and social pressure to conform to a standard of cooking from
neo-fascists and their ilk is just bullshit.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

wrote:
>"social sectors" doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the public
>schools though.

Where else do children spend most of their days?

Orlando

wrote:
>There are reasons why not doing that is the case. And in the end, we are
>the better for not stepping into the quagmire where we empower an elite to
>decide the fate of all citizens.

I'm not talking about elites; no one accuses elites of rigging national driving
standards, college entrance exams, police or fire department tests, etc. I'm
talking about a parental licensing exam meant to emphasize objective
responsibility standards so that new parents know what society expects of them,
with an eye toward not raising their children to be drains on society.

Orlando

wrote:
>So are you saying lazy-useless-parasites should decide the fate of
>those who not only have dreams, but follow through on them?

I agree with you up to a point. Of course, healthy, well adjusted responsible
people should ultimately set the social tone. But, too often, that tone becomes
dismissive or discriminatory against the poor or less fortunate. If poor people
expect society to step in and help them raise their kids, they must be prepared
to be scrutinized and even punished for refusing to do everything they can to
improve their lot or prevent it in the first place. That should be the price of
public assistance.

Orlando

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:

> I'm
> talking about a parental licensing exam

And who is going to write the questions, what bias will be used and what
group of society will get to say what is good parenting and what is bad
parenting? Whose interests will they serve? Will it have a Christian
bias? A secular bias? Are you prepared to irritate Jains and Big Endians
by ignoring their religious points of view in this questionnaire?

You cannot attempt to regulate human reproduction (let alone succeed)
without compromising some fundamental principles.

Personally, I think people should pass an exam before being allowed to post
on Usenet, but there you are. Ain't gonna happen.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:

> Of course, healthy, well adjusted responsible
> people should ultimately set the social tone.

And how do you establish who those people are?

There is a cartoon. It's a large meeting. A banner reads PARENTS OF
AVERAGE CHILDREN. There are three people in the room.

Nobody will meet your requirements. Nobody is that healthy, well-adjusted
and responsible that they would take your job of setting the social tone.
If they are so well-adjusted etc., they will most likely tell you to go and
shove it. Then you end up with control freaks like Lou who think they can
use insults to modify human behaviour.

If it happens, let me know because I want to go as far as possible in the
opposite direction.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

wrote:
>And who is going to write the questions, what bias will be used and what
>group of society will get to say what is good parenting and what is bad
>parenting?

We can have rotating committees writing up the questions with input from
community leaders and/or concerned criticize. The questions could be put up for
public referendum before signed into law for the license.

>Whose interests will they serve? Will it have a Christian
>bias? A secular bias?

The questions should be tailored to be as objective as possible and to focus on
parental responsibility's rather than specific questions of religiosity.

>Are you prepared to irritate Jains and Big Endians
>by ignoring their religious points of view in this questionnaire?

This questionnaire would have as little to do with religion as possible.
Alternatively, just as churches issue marriage licenses, different churches
could issue optional parenting licenses in place of the civil secular one.

>You cannot attempt to regulate human reproduction (let alone succeed)
>without compromising some fundamental principles.

I'd like us to try even if we fail.

>Personally, I think people should pass an exam before being allowed to post
>on Usenet, but there you are. Ain't gonna happen.


I've past mine with flying colors, baby.

Orlando

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:

>>Personally, I think people should pass an exam before being allowed to
>>post on Usenet, but there you are. Ain't gonna happen.
>
> I've past mine with flying colors, baby.

Past what?

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes