pioneering Progressive insufferabilty for over two centuries, moves to ban school bake sales.
UnhealthFUL, for crying out loud.
I love how the article focuses on the loss of a revenue stream, and not so much on the intrusion of government into our inalieanable right to eat. Most impressive is the fact that one marching band sold 4 tons of fudge.
Yes! Enough with the progressive insufferability! Has there been any single thing in this country more destructive than the so-called progressives? Well, okay, except for the whole “ending slavery” thing. But that’s it!!!! All they do is ruin this great nation. Oh, and the child labor laws. That was probably good. And women’s voting rights. But, other than that, they’re a scourge on… Wait, okay, and the civil rights movement. And social security. And stricter rape laws. And labor protections. But that’s it!!! Oh, wait, and the concept of public eduction for the poor – primary, secondary and higher. Public defenders. Opposition to torture and preemptive war… Anyway, the point is, it’s insufferable and has got to stop 😉
Assuming you’re using “progressive” for Democrat:
Well, okay, except for the whole “ending slavery” thing.
And women’s voting rights.
Again, Republicans. Opposed by Woodrow Wilson and filibustered by Congressional Dems.
Wait, okay, and the civil rights movement.
Don’t look now. Republicans again.
I agree that Progressives have accomplished good things, and that Mark here is…
oh wait, Mark didn’t say they haven’t done anything good at all. Great poorly researched strawman.
Why would you assume that progressive = Democrat? Ending slavery was a progressive action. The civil rights movement is a progressive movement. The specific political parties involved aren’t even relevant. Most of these movements begin and mature completely outside of the political establishment.
BTW, your version of history is vastly oversimplified. Republicans definitely supported the nineteenth amendment and the Civil Rights Act in greater percentages, but both passed Congress with majorities in both parties. Wilson opposed the nineteenth during the war, but supported it after 1918.
Prohibition was actually a progressive movement in its time, too, intended to make society better by ending the scourge of alcoholism.
My point wasn’t to glorify Republicans (or vilify Dems), but to point out that MattyD’s history is flawed and that the neither party has a pure history.
As far as Massachusetts goes, anybody claiming that Republicans are responsible for, well, anything that has happened there simply has no clue as to the political makeup of the state.
And as far as assuming “progressive” = “Democrat,” I agree; progressives can be either. However, it is Democrats who have hitched their own wagon to the Progressive label. They changed it from Liberal a few years ago because they realized that it was becoming pejorative. It’ll change in another ten years once Progressive becomes synonymous with their worse policies, too.
Seems to me we are quickly moving toward a society in which every pleasure (except, of course, unlimited and consequence-free sex, which is one of the inalienable rights granted in the constitution) will be regulated and priced out of existence in the name of protecting public health and safety. Now that smoking has been taxed and regulated to near extinction, the next big thing will be stamping out obesity by banning or driving up the price of just about every food that tastes good.
Massachusetts new state motto: “We’re not happy until you’re not happy”.
Nah, it’s this: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
If there is a need to truly tackle the obesity problem, then the state should do far more than go after bake sales. Inactivity is a huge contributor to our nation’s health problems, so how about adding a $50/month tax to all internet, cable, etc. connections.
Oh, and BTW….Progressive are in the GOP and Democrat parties….TR and WW were progs, as well as FDR, so the movement transcends party affiliation. Newt is a prog too.
It’s ironic that this ban on bake sales is being justified as promoting health among children. As stated in the article, these bake sales are important for raising money for after school activities, such as athletics. If there is no money for athletics, schools may have to drop them.
I haven’t been keeping up on the literature, but I’m pretty sure good health still requires a healthy diet AND exercise. And after-school athletics typically is the best form of exercise for children.
that’s easy, Tim. Raise taxes. The end-all be-all solution for progressives.
I’m beginning to wonder how my generation ever survived childhood. What with all the bake sales, see-saws and other dangerous playground equipment, wearing no seatbelts in the back seat or even riding in the back of a station wagon, walking to school alone, playing outside with friends and walking to local stores a few blocks away without the least fear or even thought of possible abduction… I’m sure I could think of lots more if I tried. About the only thing we worried about back then was getting razors in apples while trick-or-treating, and even that looks like it was an urban myth.
Mind you, some of the above were really dangerous – I’m not against seat belts by any means. Just wondering whether we’re becoming too overprotective.
I’m surprised they don’t want to control what the children eat at home, too, or else force them to consume all meals at school. But that’ll come. If the food Nazis had their way, we’d be reduced to government delivered bags of Human Chow as our sole sustinence.
Sandra – NYC and Nanny Bloomberg. Empress Michelle and her War on Food.
Don’t give them any *more* ideas!!
Search for things like ‘raw milk raids’, and very little will surprise you after that.
Hopefully it wouldn’t be green on Tuesdays.
This is for the bake sale banners.
You people are mistaken! I think it’s a good law and makes perfect sense. After all, last year, some 20,000 children died in Mass. from tainted food. Think about that: 20,000! Any law that can help protect our youngsters is necessary even if it might inconvenience you to some degree. God help us.
Oh wait, my mistake. The 20,00 died from abortion, not tainted food. Sorry.
I would expect the next step might be to fine parents with children who the state deems to be overweight, or add a tax surcharge for each pudgy kid. Annual weigh-ins to go along with the NCLB tests.
Yeah, this is getting pretty silly. It is one thing to remove sweets from the vending machines and the cafeteria, which is an example of the state properly regulating what it provides. It is quite another to ban bake sales, which are not an every day thing.
I think as we assess progressivism as a movement, we need to be balanced enough to recognize that in the past, the movement achieved many good things, but overtime it became more and more interested in positions that are simply wrong and overly intrusive.
I think the basic problem is that over the course of the 20th century, progressives have lost the ability to recognize that there are some evils in the world that it is appropriate for the government to remedy and others that government cannot remedy without doing more harm than good. The other fault is that progressives today seem to have developed a not-invented here syndrom, i.e., if a social norm was not somehow established by progressives, then it is automatically wrong and evil.
As a Progressive, I can only say that I deeply despise baked goods, joy, and community. I get great personal satisfaction out of this proposed bake sale ban. Banning cookies is what my movement is all about! Would that Gene Debs were alive to see this glorious day. I bet Chesterton loved bake sales … fatty.
Interesting that banning bake sales is seen as a health promotion measure, while the enormous amount of advertising paid for by large fast food companies such as McDonald’s is never ever mentioned… Kids cannot fail to see those ads – on huge billboards, entire pages in magazines, TV, etc. etc. Those ads are designed to grab the attention of children (and maybe even designed with the help of psychologists). When I was a child in Montréal (granted, that was a very long time ago!) my parents took my brother and I to real restaurants when they felt like eating out, and taught us how to choose our menus and how to enjoy our family meals instead of running into play areas as soon as we were finished gulping down our food.
Of course, the wealthy cannot do anything wrong, and greasy hamburgers do bring in good profits… And regulating food advertising would dangerously bring us too close to having a government intrude into our food choices; after all, who wants a ninny-state?
who wants a ninny-state?
*looks at his toilet, refrigerator, air conditioning, dishwasher, washing machine, clothes dryer, gasoline can, car bumpers, shower head, faucet head, lightbulbs…*
What, we don’t have one already?
Reason #121,498,003 for Federalism.
Bah! Federalism got us here in the first place. Sign me up for Anti-Federalism! (I am, of course, alluding to the firefight between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists during the constitutional ratification process. Show of hands. How many have read, or even heard of, “The Anti-Federalist Papers”?)
I have heard of them and I have a copy.
Hamilton has had his way for 235 years, now let the Jeffersonians have the next 50 at least.
I’d say that G. K. Chesterton hit the nail on the head with this when he said, “If there is one thing worse that the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals.”