More than 80% of coronavirus patients in Georgia are African American

I'll bet that that figure is different outside the expensive coastal cities.

An example from my own country .. big city dwellers are considerably less likely to own their own home, than small city (and rural) dwellers. So much for needing big cities to earn a decent living. A decent life is NOT one in which you can't even hang a picture on your wall without asking permission from the guy whose mortgage you've chosen to pay.

 

I know about it. And it's still not the primary cause.

 

Exactly. It's all relative. Nothing has changed in the working class country towns. Kids are still buying their first homes in their twenties.

 

Well, to be fair, the Rust Belt isn't doing so well, but that's another story.

 

Your attempted DEFLECTION failed to address the cause of poverty or the massive loss of INCOME that is preventing hardworking Americans from being able to afford their own homes OUTSIDE of city centers,

 

FWIW, I've found fast food to be one of the most expensive options out there, even using an extreme example of limiting yourself to $.99 cheeseburgers (which would be a terrible idea) at the golden arches a pb&j, tuna casserole, eggs and toast are still cheaper and overall better for you. I've been there, fast food was not part of the answer.

 

I don't know what Rust Belt is, sorry. In my country, it's the city dwellers most impacted by housing cost vs income.

 

Sometimes it's a little difficult having a discussion in an international politics forum.

Since everything can require extra explanation for those who live in other countries.

However, it shouldn't be too hard for you. If you are unsure what something means or is about, you can look it up.

 

I could do that, if I was interested enough in the specific example.

However, the same phenomenon (wage stagnation and rising house prices) is happening right across the Western World, so one generic location is the same as another for the purposes of this discussion.

 

I agree that's a better direction.

But, there remain communities where that is the direction. I don't believe we can decide for them why they are taking that approach.

Also, bad food is what we teach in large numbers of our school systems.

Remember what happened when Mrs. Obama started working to change that?

 

I actually was 90% behind Michelle on the lunch program. Our school lunches IMO were pretty good, but maybe I was lucky and my district cared more or were better funded, dunno about everyone else's experience.

Anyway although I partake in fast food at least once a week, the other meals are generally well rounded. I guess I can thank grandma and mom for that.

 

Fault???

What was this "fault"?

What did Seattle do WRONG that caused corporations to come here and offer large salaries to the employees they wanted??

Are you suggesting that the GOP would have worked to SLOW these corporations from offering large salaries?

Are you suggesting that the GOP would have imposed higher taxes to fund work to ensure that lower income people could remain in the city?

Would the GOP have stopped people from selling their homes for a lot more money, thus slowing "gentrification"?

I want to here from YOU what MISTAKE Seattle made when salaries for high tech workers went sky high.

And then, I want to hear from YOU what you think the GOP would have done about that.

How would the GOP have slowed the meteoric rise in average compensation which drove not just the housing/apartment market, but the cost of food, entertainment, and pretty much everything else that people want.

 

Yes. School lunch programs across the US are certainly not all of the same quality.

But, when Mrs. Obama started pushing for better choices of diet, she faced the rage of a hundred million political partisans.

And, THAT is the challenge that we face in diet education, isn't it?

We teach hamburgers and fries in schools, and education does work!

My daughter was a Teach for America volunteer in an inner city school in Chicago - one where every first and second story window was permanently borded with bare plywood and the fencing allowed nobody to approach without identification shown to a camera. She brought her lunch, which almost always included a salad.

At the beginning of the year, kids would stop by her desk and exclaim, "You are eating LEAVES!!!"

After a short explanation, offering of a leaf to the kids, and suggesting they could make a salad, too, they would say "You wont find anything like that in MY house."

Whatever got us to where we are today isn't likely to change without at least starting to teach a different diet. And, I'd point out that Southern cuisine and other of our regional food delights are reasonably well known for leading to obesity among those who aren't economically stressed.

 

"Your eating leaves" is funny and sad at the same time.

Honestly there is no excuse in 2020 for people not to know better. That would make an interesting thread.

Personally I love veggies. There are more leaves than animals in my fridge right now by a wide margin.

 

Although it seems high, it makes a bit of sense. Most blacks down here live in and around the big cities. Few in the rural areas. Atlanta is something like 55% black, 60% in Augusta and so on. People living on top of each other, public transportation, the airports, everyone is very close to each other.

When one think about it, over half of all cases has been in and around Atlanta.

 

1) When it comes to tax payer funding of rectification programs, it's CRUCIAL to know it was a freely made choice, so it can be rightly ignored, instead of feted as some unfortunate act of g-d.

2) And yet many kids don't eat that way, despite being 'taught' the same thing. Stop blaming everyone but the people who make the choice to buy the crap.

 

That teaching can ONLY come from the home.

 

This is just plain silly.

America was BUILT on its education system.

And, as our economy moves beyond agriculture and manufacuring (where numerous nations have become proficient) the new sectors where we can build a competitive advantage (clean energy, high tech, automation, information, innovation, medicine, etc.) are areas where university degrees are required.

 

As for diet, that's just one more topic that absolutely CAN be taught in school.

In fact, we teach diet in school today at EVERY lunch period throughout the year.

The problem is that what is taught has nothing to do with health.

 

Eating well isn't in the purview of formal (academic and vocational) education. That's the stuff which must be MODELLED at home.

Why don't you folk just hand your kids to your local Govt to raise for you? Seems you pretty much think schools should do all your parenting for you, so why not just start at birth.

 

Teaching human nutrition is contained within the sciences (biology), and has nothing to do with modelling good eating habits.

Furthermore, how dare you put it on otherwise oblivious kids to figure it all out too late in life and with zero previous exposure, via occasional school-based teaching. What an incredibly shitty and burdensome thing to do to children, just so parents get to avoid their responsibility. That crap makes me furious.

 

Declaring diet to be something that can't be taught or that should not be addressed as part of education is baseless nonsense.

Our public schools don't even have a way to AVOID teaching diet.

Pretty much every school has a lunch program and the design of that program is a daily class in diet.

You say modeling is required. Well, EVERY school lunch program IS a model.

In fact, many children DEPEND on their school lunch program for the nutrition they need, because their families aren't food secure.

 

In general, primary education biology does not teach diet and nutrition.

And, teaching nutrition as a purely academic exercise is ridiculous. First of all, there IS a school lunch program, so the modeling IS being done. Second of all, that practical application in the school cafeteria is far more powerful in terms of education than is reading a book about it or liestening to some teacher tell the class what they SHOULD be donig.

Your second paragraph makes NO sense. You say it is taught in biology, then you say soemthing TOTALLY counter to that - suggesting school should avoid diet education, leaving it to parents.

Obviously, diet education in school starts EARLY - in kindergarten and grade school. The ONLY question is what is actually taught.

Does your local grade school teach hamburgers and fries? Does it teach spaghetti? Does it teach vegetables, or does it subscribe to the "catsup is a vegetable" lesson plan?

 

1) Schools already teach human nutrition as a part of biological sciences.
2) No schools in my country have a 'lunch program'. We don't provide lunches, not even in private schools. Kids take their own.
3) Modelling of ANYTHING must start at birth, and must be via immediate carers .. all day, every day. Teachers have little to nil impact when those conditions aren't first met. They may have the child's modest attention for an hour a week, but that if that kid goes home to parents who eat fast food around the clock .. nothing the teacher says is going to impact that in 99% of cases.
4) Families aren't food secure, you say? What percentage of the parents are overweight? What percentage spend money on fast food?

 

1) Kids are taught basic nutrition from age 5. It ramps up to biological science in high school. That's all that's needed.
2) No such thing as school lunch programs where I live. Kids take their own in this country, and their PARENTS make it for them. Every damned morning.
3) Makes perfect sense. Teach human nutrition and biology only, and cancel those lunch programs. Good way to stop parents becoming ever lazier.