MeMe Roth and her crew at National Action Against Obesity think that we ought to be boycotting Girl Scout cookies because they're bad for us and they worry about "young females identifying themselves with baked goods".
I happen to like Girl Scout cookies, but that all makes a certain amount of sense to me. And the best counter-argument Katherine Mangu-Ward can come up with is that Girl Scout cookies aren't as bad as Al Qaeda or global warming, so Roth's probably on to something.
What I don't get is why libertarians - who are ostensibly opposed only to government intervention into peoples' lives - get so offended by this sort of mobilization by private citizens. It's almost like the anti-government rhetoric is all just a pretense or something.
P.S. - The NAOO's press release suggests that "Girl Scouts look to Boy Scouts as a model", but I think that's wrong as a general principle. I was a Boy Scout, and I appreciate that the BSA have done a good job of identifying themselves with community service rather than something like cooking. At the same time, the BSA is an essentially discriminatory organization, and there are many aspects of the group that the Girl Scouts would not be improved by emulating.
Update: Mangu-Ward goes full-length with her criticism. She actually offers an argument this time, including the cogent fact that Girl Scout cookies are really, really good, so you don't obviously make the world a better place by getting rid of them.
Fair enough. Like I titled the post, I'm still going to buy and eat Girl Scout cookies at every opportunity. (I had several Samoas this evening.) That kind of dodges the question about promoting obesity, but I appreciate the sentiment.
Completely unaddressed are the feminist concerns, which I think are at least as big a deal as the health issues.