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!)

[patches70]

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.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"

And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

And, I would like to add, Woodruff, that if The State want's to provide free lunches to poor families, then do so. But it should not be dependent at all on if other students purchase school lunches or not. The implication of the school official is that if these boycotts continue it could put the lunch subsidy at risk. This is complete BS and is is called coercive persuasion which is very unethical and immoral. I would like to think you would agree with that.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"

And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Except, who is coercing whom and why?

The poor kids have not had the option of better lunches for some time now. They are pretty well stuck eating unhealthy foods..and, for a lifetime, get used to eating those foods. My son was introduced to "eggo" type waffles, french toast sticks and other "wonderful" "foods" when he bought his meals at school. He still buys his lunch, but not his breakfasts. Its a compromise, but he felt funny bringing his own lunch.

The real "coersion" has been school cafeterias and administrations caring more about cutting costs than giving the kids a healthy and tasty lifetime example of the kinds of meals they should eat.

[PLAYER57832]

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? .

Since you are unclear, here is a definition for you:

definition of expert by the Free Online Dictionary ...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/expertex·pert (k spûrt) n. 1. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject. \

See, most people think actually having knowledge of a subject gives you more credibility than people who just spout off opinions.even if those opinions are based on the US constitution

[Symmetry]

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, "Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"
And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Essentially you're bullshitting. I've read your post three times and oddly enough it makes less sense each time.

[Night Strike]

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.

Actually, the REAL truth is that calorie limits have been dictated by the federal government, not by "some school districts".

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Actually, the REAL truth is that calorie limits have been dictated by the federal government, not by "some school districts".

And giving smaller breaded, formed chicken "patties" is much easier than adding a salad bar.
But.. a salad bar will do the same thing without portions being cut, so.. no.

[Night Strike]

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.

Actually, the REAL truth is that calorie limits have been dictated by the federal government, not by "some school districts".

And giving smaller breaded, formed chicken "patties" is much easier than adding a salad bar.
But.. a salad bar will do the same thing without portions being cut, so.. no.

The schools have to have a set number of meat or meat substitutes each week, so they have to do smaller chicken patties or other such meals instead of simply replacing it with salads.

[patches70]

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.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"

And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Except, who is coercing whom and why?

The poor kids have not had the option of better lunches for some time now. They are pretty well stuck eating unhealthy foods..and, for a lifetime, get used to eating those foods. My son was introduced to "eggo" type waffles, french toast sticks and other "wonderful" "foods" when he bought his meals at school. He still buys his lunch, but not his breakfasts. Its a compromise, but he felt funny bringing his own lunch.

The real "coersion" has been school cafeterias and administrations caring more about cutting costs than giving the kids a healthy and tasty lifetime example of the kinds of meals they should eat.

I'm pretty sure you're completely missing my point.

I don't care who gets school lunches, who brings their own lunch, what the portions are, or anything else on that matter. That's just how The State works, I accept that.

Some wish to boycott and bring their own lunch to school, for whatever reason. More power to them.
Some wish to keep on buying the school lunches, for whatever reason. More power to them.

There is plenty of room for either. What I'm talking about is the horrible tactics being used to attempt to change the minds of those boycotting. Those tactics are unethical, immoral and immaterial.

That is all I was commenting about. If a family has decided that the portions being served at school are too small, not healthy enough or for whatever reason wish to pack their own lunch, that should be all fine and dandy to all concerned. Period.
There is no reason for the school officials or those who purchase school lunches, to try and persuade those who do not wish to participate in the school lunch program using the lunch lady losing her job or the poor kid might not be able to get a free lunch because of the actions of the boycotting students.

The tactics mentioned in the article posted are disgusting. Attempts to shame those who are opting out of the lunch program into joining back with the Collective.
What is wrong with someone being dissatisfied with a product and taking legal measures to provide said product on their own?
Not a damn thing. More power to them and the arguments on why they shouldn't be doing that are all wrong. Hell, Player, you're bitching about the school lunch program yourself. If you don't like the school lunch program then by all means, shouldn't you have the option to send your own kid in with his own lunch?

If one is unable to provide said lunches on their own, there really isn't a damn thing they can do about it, is there? They have to take what's provided. And by all means, if what's provided doesn't satisfy them, even though they cannot afford or provide better for themselves anyway, then they may petition for changes.
But don't try and make that petition dependent on forcing everyone else who can provide for themselves to be forced into participating into something they do not wish to participate in.

[Woodruff]

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.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

Ok, fair enough.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"
And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.
And, I would like to add, Woodruff, that if The State want's to provide free lunches to poor families, then do so. But it should not be dependent at all on if other students purchase school lunches or not. The implication of the school official is that if these boycotts continue it could put the lunch subsidy at risk. This is complete BS and is is called coercive persuasion which is very unethical and immoral. I would like to think you would agree with that.

Yes, I believe I already agreed with you on that. You didn't read my post that you responded to?

[Woodruff]

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.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"

And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Except, who is coercing whom and why?

Pretty clearly, in this example, a lunch lady was.

The poor kids have not had the option of better lunches for some time now. They are pretty well stuck eating unhealthy foods..and, for a lifetime, get used to eating those foods. My son was introduced to "eggo" type waffles, french toast sticks and other "wonderful" "foods" when he bought his meals at school. He still buys his lunch, but not his breakfasts. Its a compromise, but he felt funny bringing his own lunch.
The real "coersion" has been school cafeterias and administrations caring more about cutting costs than giving the kids a healthy and tasty lifetime example of the kinds of meals they should eat.

That's not really coercion. That's more like requirement.