The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[Juan_Bottom]

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

[Night Strike]

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

Since when do the "experts" get to decide my personal freedoms?

[Juan_Bottom]

Then you can't say those kids are starving.
So lets ignore that.

Why can't you bring your own food to your high school?

[Night Strike]

Then you can't say those kids are starving.
So lets ignore that.

Why can't you bring your own food to your high school?

These kids did precisely that, and good for them. The school was not providing them with an adequate service, so they boycotted that service and found an alternative.

[Juan_Bottom]

Ok then personal freedom was never ever endangered anyway. Bazinga.

[Woodruff]

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

Since when do the "experts" get to decide my personal freedoms?

It's funny how often you're in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms that you like, and how often you're not in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms you don't like.

[Woodruff]

Then you can't say those kids are starving.
So lets ignore that.

Why can't you bring your own food to your high school?

These kids did precisely that, and good for them. The school was not providing them with an adequate service, so they boycotted that service and found an alternative.

So what's the problem? I'm asking this in a completely serious manner. I see no problem here.

[patches70]

Ok then personal freedom was never ever endangered anyway. Bazinga.

But don't you see the attempted coercion? The attempt to make the case that by "exercising personal freedom" is a bad thing?




But a minority of students decried the move, saying it only hurts those who depend upon serving kids to make a living.

"I don't think these lunch ladies should lose their jobs. One of them came up to us and said we might lose our jobs if this continues,"

And then the subtle threats?

failure to follow them could mean students who get federally funded lunch might lose their subsidy.

And then there is the manipulated price that has nothing to do with any normal rules of economics-

we are required every year to raise our price by federal mandate."


So, by students not "getting with the program" and exercising free choice by bringing their own lunches they are putting people's jobs at risk and threatening the "charity" status of The State being able to provide free lunches to low income families. It seems one is a heel to exercise their freedom.

It should not be that way.

The automatic raising of the prices by federal mandate should also be troublesome. It's one thing if it's because of economic conditions, it's quite another for the government to step and and raise the prices by fiat while actually lowering the amount of product one gets as those prices continue to rise (artificially).

This whole thing is yet another example of how government comes in to "fix" one supposed problem and creates more problems. Trade offs. That's what it's about, but when these types of policies are enacted no one ever talks about or considers the trade offs and consequences of said policies.
When students and families take matters into their own hands and attempt to opt out of the policy, in come the sycophants trying to shame, threaten and coerce everyone to tow the line.

It's sickening.

[Night Strike]

Then you can't say those kids are starving.
So lets ignore that.

Why can't you bring your own food to your high school?

These kids did precisely that, and good for them. The school was not providing them with an adequate service, so they boycotted that service and found an alternative.

So what's the problem? I'm asking this in a completely serious manner. I see no problem here.

That kids chose to stand against the nanny-state control is a good thing. The fact that the federal government thinks they need to dictate the number of calories kids get to eat from school lunches is the problem. It's absolute control by the government that simply harms people.

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

Since when do the "experts" get to decide my personal freedoms?

It's funny how often you're in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms that you like, and how often you're not in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms you don't like.

Examples?

[Woodruff]

"I don't think these lunch ladies should lose their jobs. One of them came up to us and said we might lose our jobs if this continues,"[/i]

I certainly agree that the lunch ladies (or others employed by the school) should not be making these sorts of statements.

And then the subtle threats?

failure to follow them could mean students who get federally funded lunch might lose their subsidy.

I don't really understand this one. The kids getting free lunches are boycotting the free lunches? I can understand why they may be upset at the smaller portions, but if their family is actually so poor that they've qualified for free lunches, the odds are at least decent that this is STILL their best meal of the day.

And then there is the manipulated price that has nothing to do with any normal rules of economics-
we are required every year to raise our price by federal mandate."

Yeah, I'm with you on that...makes no sense at all. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that's true. In the four years I've been at my current high school, the prices have no changed (I frequently eat with cadets).

So, by students not "getting with the program" and exercising free choice by bringing their own lunches they are putting people's jobs at risk and threatening the "charity" status of The State being able to provide free lunches to low income families. It seems one is a heel to exercise their freedom.
It should not be that way.

I agree completely with you. By the same token, and this does not excuse some of the things that were stated, expressing your rights is many times not a pleasant experience.

[Phatscotty]

Then you can't say those kids are starving.
So lets ignore that.

Why can't you bring your own food to your high school?

These kids did precisely that, and good for them. The school was not providing them with an adequate service, so they boycotted that service and found an alternative.

So what's the problem? I'm asking this in a completely serious manner. I see no problem here.

That kids chose to stand against the nanny-state control is a good thing. The fact that the federal government thinks they need to dictate the number of calories kids get to eat from school lunches is the problem. It's absolute control by the government that simply harms people.

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

Since when do the "experts" get to decide my personal freedoms?

It's funny how often you're in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms that you like, and how often you're not in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms you don't like.

Examples?

Example #1:

[Woodruff]

Then you can't say those kids are starving.
So lets ignore that.

Why can't you bring your own food to your high school?

These kids did precisely that, and good for them. The school was not providing them with an adequate service, so they boycotted that service and found an alternative.

So what's the problem? I'm asking this in a completely serious manner. I see no problem here.

That kids chose to stand against the nanny-state control is a good thing. The fact that the federal government thinks they need to dictate the number of calories kids get to eat from school lunches is the problem. It's absolute control by the government that simply harms people.

It's not a problem, in my opinion. Childhood obesity is a very serious problem in this nation. You want less taxes and less government spending...well, a healthy populace is one way to help that.

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

Since when do the "experts" get to decide my personal freedoms?

It's funny how often you're in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms that you like, and how often you're not in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms you don't like.

Examples?

To name two off the top of my head, "gay marriage" and "legalization of drugs".

[tzor]

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

And this so clearly shows the whole problem in the progressive movement. Where are the experts? Who are the experts? What exactly are they expert at? Most importantly, how far removed from reality are they? The evolution of the Philosopher King of Plato to the modern breaucurat / expert has basically been a perpetual struggle at renaming and rebranding. And so we have these (apparently) food experts who in their infinite wisdom know exactly how every good little boy and girl should eat and how every good little boy and girl should all eat exactly alike; the athletic and the studious. For it must be true; as they have decreed it so.

[Symmetry]

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

And this so clearly shows the whole problem in the progressive movement. Where are the experts? Who are the experts? What exactly are they expert at? Most importantly, how far removed from reality are they? The evolution of the Philosopher King of Plato to the modern breaucurat / expert has basically been a perpetual struggle at renaming and rebranding. And so we have these (apparently) food experts who in their infinite wisdom know exactly how every good little boy and girl should eat and how every good little boy and girl should all eat exactly alike; the athletic and the studious. For it must be true; as they have decreed it so.

And this is a prime example of the degressive movement. Watch how each sentence makes decreasingly less sense.

What is it trying to say? Something about Plato and proper nutrition? A history of the progressive movement with regards to little boys and little girls? Breaucurats (sic.) evolving from Philosopher Kings?

Odd stuff.

[PLAYER57832]

The automatic raising of the prices by federal mandate should also be troublesome. It's one thing if it's because of economic conditions, it's quite another for the government to step and and raise the prices by fiat while actually lowering the amount of product one gets as those prices continue to rise (artificially).

This whole thing is yet another example of how government comes in to "fix" one supposed problem and creates more problems. Trade offs. That's what it's about, but when these types of policies are enacted no one ever talks about or considers the trade offs and consequences of said policies.

1. School lunches are sold way below cost in most, if not all districts. The actual cost varies, but its low, and that is just for those who pay "full" price. In any district, a number of students get free or reduced cost lunches.

2.The standards for American school lunches have been plain horrible. Very poor quality vegetables and often not much variety (a LOT of kids in my area seriously have never had beets even!) There are other threads on that, but basically, since kids don't eat the veggies, they wind up eating even more starches. Sometimes the kids are allowed to take "seconds" and sometimes they buy snacks.

3. WAY too many American kids just don't know what a good meal is. Yes, parents could teach them, but kids spend a good portion of their day at school, and, well... health is part of what they are supposed to learn.

When students and families take matters into their own hands and attempt to opt out of the policy, in come the sycophants trying to shame, threaten and coerce everyone to tow the line.

It's sickening.

Well.. except that is exactly what parents have had to do to even begin to try and get decent food onto school lunch lines.. something other than way over-cooked starchy and fatty mostly pre-prepared frozen foods.

The REAL truth is that some school districts have decided cutting portions in draconian ways is easier than actually providing more healthy, lower fat alternatives in ways that kids might eat them. Sort of the way that some managers, told that they will hire blacks/women, etc... manage to find the most incompetent individuals they can to "demonstrate" how "horrible" the requirement is, while others do exactly the opposite.

(and note the school here is very far from the worst of examples!)