Little green soldiers on cupcakes mean trouble for Mich. third grader

By David McElroy · March 8, 2013

If cupcakes are topped with little green WW II soldiers, they somehow become dangerous or threatening if they’re brought into a school. Whatever the case, it was enough to get a Michigan 9-year-old and his parents into trouble with his school. It seems like another case of insane “safety” overreach by out-of-touch school administrators.

Casey Fountain’s third grade son brought cupcakes to school last week to share with his classmates in celebration of his ninth birthday. The boy’s mother made the cupcakes and decorated them with small green soldiers that the boy likes — very much like the G.I. Joe figures that every generation of kids has been playing with for decades.

But when the boy got to school with the “insensitive” cupcakes, they were confiscated because of the figures. The principal called the boy’s father and told him that it was insensitive because of the shootings in Connecticut last year. (Did army infantry invade the school? I must have missed that.)

The boy’s father called the media to complain, but the school refused to go on camera to talk about the case, issuing a strange statement instead. Here was the strangest part of the statement:

“On the other hand, there are those who feel that guns create fear in schools and we need to put solid security measures in place plus practice routines to be prepared in case an emergency should ever occur,” the statement said. “Living in a democratic society entails respect for opposing opinions.” [Emphasis mine.]

So this is the school’s way of showing “respect for opposing opinions”?

Schools have a responsibility to maintain a safe environment. It’s reasonable to keep weapons out of schools. But it falls into Crazy Land to attack a 9-year-old boy for tiny historical figures that happen to be holding guns. There’s not a person on the planet who rationally believes that green toy soldier is going to hurt anybody.

This isn’t about school safety or about respecting anybody’s opinions. This is about brainwashing children to believe that weapons are so evil that they can’t even be depicted. The school is engaged in unilateral political action to support a social outcome that the administrators favor. This has nothing to do with legitimate education. It has nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with control.

As long as government owns the monopoly on schooling children, this sort of insanity is going to go on and there’s almost nothing parents can do about it. When you accept a one-size-fits-all system, you’re bound to end up not liking that monolithic system at some point.

The only solution is to decouple schools from government. We don’t need government-operated schools any more than we need government-operated grocery stores.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts