In a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Harvard professor Dr. David Ludwig proposed that the government should take obese children away from their parents. He co-wrote the article with lawyer/researcher Lindsey Murtagh of the Harvard School of Public Health.
OMG! Another example of liberals’ love of stateism, where liberals believe that the state can solve all problems great and small. That when faced with any problem, they believe the government will always make the best decision for everyone involved.
Clearly Dr. Ludwig and Mr./Ms. Murtagh believe that these awful parents should be relieved of their parental rights because they are allowing their children to become obese. Why that’s tantamount to burning them with cigarettes or shoving bamboo splinters under their fingernails! These people can’t be trusted with the raising of the next generation of government funders, oh, wait a minute, I mean citizens.
We have so many examples of where government intervention has worked out so well, like the government’s taking over of the social welfare system. Now we have gone from churches and other community groups working to assist individuals to get back on their feet to a government system where sloth is rewarded. A system where now we literally have multiple generations of families in the welfare system. Why? Because they are rewarded for not working! They receive housing, food stamps, utilities, etc., etc. so long as they remain unemployed. And how do they increase their income from the government? They increase the size of their brood, that is, so long as they are not married. Thanks to such thoughtful programs as ADC and the like, the more kids they have out of wedlock, the more money they receive from the all powerful state. And where does this money come from, why straight from the pockets of those who don’t count on the government for their living.
Now I’m not saying the thought behind the program was evil, but as often is the case, the law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head. As the saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Most liberal programs are well intended enough. But when you try and impose an un-natural one size fits all solution to a problem, it predictably goes horribly wrong.
Let’s take another look at the government thinking they can solve all manner of problems. Let’s consider the Corps of Engineers (CoE) and their flood abatement programs.
Before the CoE got involved with the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, they would regularly flood. The waters would disperse over thousands or millions of acres. Normally not to any great depth, but flood they would. Those who would inhabit the areas would build their homes above the levels the rivers would rise to. Then along came the government and the CoE. They built damns and levies all along the rivers and told the folks they could control the flooding. And the silly people believed them.
So of course they built in the areas that had formerly flooded, because they were told that these areas were safe now. Then the inevitable happens, mother nature has a high snow winter, or a heavy rain spring. More so than the government and the CoE planned for. All of the water that would have spread out over millions of acres gets penned up behind damns and kept channeled in between levies. Since the water was not allowed to spread out like it was intended to, the levels rise higher and higher until it eventually and inevitably does, it breaks down the damns or levies and comes rushing over the land. Not with the slow gradual rise of water as nature had planned but in a torrent, destroying all of the stuff that the government had told the citizens was safe. Not to the depth of inches as it naturally would have done had it been allowed to spread out, but rather to the depth of feet and yards. All thanks to government knowing better.
And here we see it again. A couple of liberals believing that government knows best. That the government should take over the raising of these children because their parents have allowed them to eat too much or the wrong things, and quite probably, many of them have done so using the food stamps they got from the government in the first place.
Well, I say, “Get The Hell Out Of Our Lives And Get Back To Doing What Governments Should Be Doing!” And just what is that you may be asking. Well that’s just what the founding fathers laid out in the original documents. Protecting our Lives, our Liberties and our Property from loss due to force or fraud. That’s pretty much it. Period.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Civic Minded Activist or Publicity Whore.....You Decide
Well now, here’s an interesting quandary. Women in Pittsburgh have apparently been faced with some hostility while breastfeeding in public settings. An art instructor at Carnegie Mellon University has decided upon a confrontational approach to dealing with this situation.
Ms. Jill Miller has decided to create an emergency response unit to come to a nursing mother’s aid when she is pressured while publicly nursing her child. This unit will consist of a refurbished ice cream truck with pictures of women nursing on the sides and a breast(s) on the roof. It will have an awning that will unfurl to offer shade as well as chairs that can be set out underneath as well as a comfortable interior if the mother would care for something a little more private. (This would seem a little oxymoronic since they had already been exposing their breast in public to start the whole cycle.)
The plan is, when a woman is harassed she would call for assistance and this garish truck would pull up outside of the establishment. Then a flash mob orchestrated through Twitter and/or Facebook would show up as well, in an attempt to make an even bigger scene. To quote Ms. Miller, “Thought the nursing mother created a spectacle? Meet ‘The Milk Truck’!”
The idea is, to make it more painful for the offending establishment to harass the nursing mother than it is to let her offend a few patrons and possibly the owners and staff.
In a way, I kind of like the idea.
Of course the business owners ought to have the right to control what goes on inside of their establishment. If they don’t want a woman exposing her breast, even if it is to feed her off spring, it ought to be the business’s right to ban such a practice. On the other hand they need to be aware that such actions might expose them to public protests which could lead to even larger embarrassments, such as ‘The Milk Truck’ setting up camp in front of their business.
My real question here is concerning Ms. Miller. When I first started reading this I thought, hey this is kind of a novel approach to addressing such a problem. As I read further I’ve come to consider the possibility that Ms. Miller may be motivated by a little more self-serving interest.
While she recounts that the ‘Milk Truck’ will provide the mother with a supportive place to nurse her child, it will coincidentally be part of an art exhibit at the Andy Warhol Museum. Additionally, it will be available for appearances at events (Lilith Fairs and the like, no doubt).
The more cynical side of me keeps whispering “She’s a self-promoting publicity whore who’s found a way to get her name in front of her target audience without any real cost to herself!”
I don’t know a single thing about Ms. Miller other than she teaches at a university and her area is art. But I would be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that she is a strident feminist socialist.
She is currently in the process of raising money from OTHER people that she can use to further a feminist agenda while elevating her status as a champion of feminist/liberal causes AND getting a piece of her work and her name in the Andy Warhol Museum.
Had this idea come from someone who was not an “artist”, but rather a frustrated mother with no art background, someone who just wanted to do something. Had it not been scheduled to appear at an art museum, or available for public appearances, I would probably feel differently. But as it stands, I’m going to have to stand with my cynical side.
I could be wrong, at which point I would owe Ms. Miller an apology. But I seriously doubt that will be necessary.
Ms. Jill Miller has decided to create an emergency response unit to come to a nursing mother’s aid when she is pressured while publicly nursing her child. This unit will consist of a refurbished ice cream truck with pictures of women nursing on the sides and a breast(s) on the roof. It will have an awning that will unfurl to offer shade as well as chairs that can be set out underneath as well as a comfortable interior if the mother would care for something a little more private. (This would seem a little oxymoronic since they had already been exposing their breast in public to start the whole cycle.)
The plan is, when a woman is harassed she would call for assistance and this garish truck would pull up outside of the establishment. Then a flash mob orchestrated through Twitter and/or Facebook would show up as well, in an attempt to make an even bigger scene. To quote Ms. Miller, “Thought the nursing mother created a spectacle? Meet ‘The Milk Truck’!”
The idea is, to make it more painful for the offending establishment to harass the nursing mother than it is to let her offend a few patrons and possibly the owners and staff.
In a way, I kind of like the idea.
Of course the business owners ought to have the right to control what goes on inside of their establishment. If they don’t want a woman exposing her breast, even if it is to feed her off spring, it ought to be the business’s right to ban such a practice. On the other hand they need to be aware that such actions might expose them to public protests which could lead to even larger embarrassments, such as ‘The Milk Truck’ setting up camp in front of their business.
My real question here is concerning Ms. Miller. When I first started reading this I thought, hey this is kind of a novel approach to addressing such a problem. As I read further I’ve come to consider the possibility that Ms. Miller may be motivated by a little more self-serving interest.
While she recounts that the ‘Milk Truck’ will provide the mother with a supportive place to nurse her child, it will coincidentally be part of an art exhibit at the Andy Warhol Museum. Additionally, it will be available for appearances at events (Lilith Fairs and the like, no doubt).
The more cynical side of me keeps whispering “She’s a self-promoting publicity whore who’s found a way to get her name in front of her target audience without any real cost to herself!”
I don’t know a single thing about Ms. Miller other than she teaches at a university and her area is art. But I would be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that she is a strident feminist socialist.
She is currently in the process of raising money from OTHER people that she can use to further a feminist agenda while elevating her status as a champion of feminist/liberal causes AND getting a piece of her work and her name in the Andy Warhol Museum.
Had this idea come from someone who was not an “artist”, but rather a frustrated mother with no art background, someone who just wanted to do something. Had it not been scheduled to appear at an art museum, or available for public appearances, I would probably feel differently. But as it stands, I’m going to have to stand with my cynical side.
I could be wrong, at which point I would owe Ms. Miller an apology. But I seriously doubt that will be necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)