Skip to comments.Trouble in the Nanny State
Posted on 03/14/2013 3:20:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Like the proverbial monkey typing for infinity and getting Shakespeare, Mayor Bloomberg's obsession with reforming New Yorkers' health has finally produced a brilliant ad campaign.
Posters are popping up in subway stations and bus stops giving statistics about teen pregnancy that show cute little kids saying things like, "Honestly, Mom ... chances are he won't stay with you. What happens to me?" and "I'm twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen."
(Based on a recent CBS report, the kid could add, "Then again, I'm in the New York City public school system, so even if I graduate I won't be able to read.")
It's one thing to stigmatize "Big Gulp" drinkers, but liberals are hopping mad at this attempt to stigmatize teen pregnancy, 90 percent of which is unwed. To put it another way, if you're a New York teen with a distended belly these days, it had better be because you're pregnant.
Planned Parenthood's Haydee Morales complained that the ads are creating "stigma" and "negative public opinions about teen pregnancy." (I'm pretty sure that's the basic idea.)
Instead, Morales suggested "helping teens access health care, birth control and high-quality sexual and reproductive health education." Like the kind they got before becoming pregnant, you mean? Are you new here, Haydee?
Coincidentally, Planned Parenthood happens to provide reproductive health care! Liberals act as if gun owners, soda-guzzlers and smokers are innocent victims of the gun, food and cigarette industries, but the $542 million-a-year birth control industry is a quarry of angels.
The New York Times' Michael Powell explained in a column that, as a parent of teenagers, he's learned that the stupidest thing to do is resort to "the shame-and-blame game." Teenage pregnancy, he states categorically, is a "problem of poverty."
I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem, but let's stick to liberals' newfound opposition to shaming campaigns.
Far from opposing stigmas, liberals are the main propagators of them -- against cigarettes, guns, plastic bags, obesity, not recycling, Fox News, racist "code words," not liking "Lincoln" and junk food.
The stigma against smoking has gone so swimmingly that you can't enjoy a little tobacco pleasure 50 yards from another human being without some bossy woman marching over and accusing you of poisoning her.
California is currently running a series of "Reefer Madness"-style anti-smoking ads, including one that shows cigarette smoke going from a woman outside on her porch, up a story, through the door of another apartment, across the living room, down the hallway and into a room where a baby is sleeping. That would be the equivalent of the Bloomberg ads claiming teen pregnancy causes genocide.
And what exactly was the purpose of the Journal-News publishing the names and addresses of every legal gun owner in various counties in New York state a few months ago? To congratulate them? To start a hunting club?
No, I believe it was to stigmatize legal gun owners. The fact that we didn't already know who they were proved that the problem isn't legal gun ownership. All those legal guns -- and no rash of drive-by shootings!
Los Angeles has banned plastic bags at supermarkets, even though reusable canvas bags are portable bacterial colonies. But a little ad campaign describing the downsides of teenage pregnancy -- which is still subsidized -- and liberals howl in protest.
One begins to suspect that liberals aren't as interested in stopping teenagers from having illegitimate kids as they claim. Do they believe a teenager who gets pregnant out of wedlock is harming herself and her child as much a teenager who smokes? How about an unwed teen who smokes at a landfill?
It's only a "shame-and-blame game" when liberals secretly approve of the behavior they pretend to oppose.
Unwed mothers have been the perennial excuse for big government, going back to Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who plotted in the 1960s to create broken families, welfare dependency and urban riots to pave the way for socialist revolution.
That's why single mothers are revered victims -- victims in need of an ever-expanding social safety net, staffed with well-pensioned government workers. As described in that great book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," liberals concoct fake victims in order to victimize the rest of us.
The only thing single mothers are "victims" of is their own choice to have sex with men they're not married to. Liberals seem to believe that drinking soda is voluntary, but getting pregnant is more like catching the flu.
It would be hard to make the case that fast food, plastic bags and cigarettes do more damage than single motherhood.
-- Controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single mother.
-- At least 70 percent of juvenile murderers, pregnant teenagers, high school dropouts, teen suicides, runaways and juvenile delinquents were raised by single mothers.
-- A study back in 1990 by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that, absent single motherhood, there would be no difference in black and white crime rates.
So liberals don't try to make that case. They just say they're against "shaming" and then go back to shaming gun owners, non-recyclers, smokers and "Big Gulp" aficionados -- while subsidizing illegitimacy.
Hey, why let the facts get in the way of an sensational emotionally appealing story ?
Being we are pretty much neighbors.....I’m gonna be nice and explain to you the folly of someone that hasn’t been around here a month pretty much insulting the intelligence of a longtime member..or two....while showing their own blatant and wide ignorance at the same time.
Hey dude...This ain’t AOL chat...or the local Patch board....this is Free Republic...and as you’ll learn if you stick around long....this is the premier conservative forum on the net. Even Captain Oblivious...or a KOS regular...would know better than to question a FReeper’s grasp and knowledge of Ann Coulter’s history...from her peak during the Bush years to her exposure as a political hack and descent into the same league with all the other political hacks that are considered journalists these days. Any serious thinking FReeper has always seen through Coulter’s facade and charade....she played what some past posters felt were hawt looks into a couple hot books and a sliver of consideration as a serious independent thinker until the 2008 political climate forced her to reveal her true self as she tried to defend McCain like her masters ordered.
That being said...The second and most glaring errr....ummm...logical disconnect you made in your one sentence post..(Wow...that took effort)...was making clear your belief that no matter how well written a piece is...no matter how much truth it contains...no matter what...if YOU do not like/respect/or share the exact political philosophy with an author....YOU consider any and all work composed by that author to be unworthy of a glance. That is sad...and shows a very narrow mind on your part. It reveals a mindset that goes against the very core of what a true conservative should have.
We are about freedom. Free market economy...individual liberty...and the free exchange of ideas in search of truth. How can one justify core beliefs and positions if they are not won fairly in battle against all others in the war to find truth. We are supposed to be the side that, like science, not let emotions and feelings cloud judgment on serious questions, but let facts build until truth is revealed.
Liberals are the ones that allow their emotions dictate their core beliefs, they are the ones who allow feelings and shallow thoughts dictate what they perceive as truth. They are the ones who refuse to listen to the other side....like children. They are the ones who cannot stand on the basic truths of their beliefs, so they resort to being the 8 year old boy standing there covering his ears while shouting his side louder and louder thinking the loudest side wins.
I NEVER look at who wrote a piece until after I read through it at least once...only then because a first glance has revealed the piece to be a political whore turning tricks instead of a serious, intellectually honest effort. I HAD NO CLUE Coulter had penned this piece until you brought it up.
And in the grand scheme of things...on this esteemed forum where one must bring game to play long...The LEAST IMPORTANT detail of each and every piece posted is WHO WROTE IT. The MOST intellectually lazy thing I see on this forum is posters who attack the source or author of a piece instead of the substance in the piece.
Now...back to the piece...I disagree with Coulter’s basic premise of narrowing the root cause of the degradation of society in my lifetime...born in 1967. She singles out single mothers having children out of wedlock and attacks along that narrow front....when in reality....the main issue is the destruction of the family unit due to the deliberate and concerted actions of fed.gov since the 60’s.
My father drove a fuel tanker and made a modest income...yet paid cash for prenatal care and birth for both me and my brother 10 years after me. In 1977....the total bill for 9 months prenatal care by one of the top ob-gyn docs in metro Atlanta and 3 days hospital stay at delivery was just under 4 grand.
My dad paid cash for all our medical needs...which included a siezure problem my brother had that had him see a plethora of specialists over the course of a year...and 10 years of meds after the docs figured it out.
I’m soon to be 46....in my childhood...there was no government involvement in the child support business...No Multi thousand dollar tax rewards given to lower income families for each child they birth that they cannot afford. Very few food stamps. No HMO’s and medicare scams...so medical care was still affordable to lower income families. No DEFACS or gov agency around ready at an instant to swoop in and destroy families because Little Johnny was still mad he didn’t get his way last night when the teacher mistook the normal bruises and wounds that a normal 8 year old boy inflicts on themselves playing for abuse, and told the teacher just how mean his parents were. While looking for the slightest, miniscule reason to get involved in normal families.....the really bad families...the real abuse and neglect...the children that really need someone to help get ignored.
In the past 35 years....things have changed. In my childhood, the family unit in poor and working class was still intact. Now, fed.gov has destroyed the family unit through the system it has set up...Through tax law...social programs....child support recovery...and the public school system....a deliberate strategy has been implemented by fed.gov which not only has destroyed the family unit of lower income people....fed.gov has taken the money to pay for all this from people in the middle and upper class through higher income tax and property taxes.
FED.GOV IS the SINGLE FAULT TO BLAME FOR THE DEGREDATION of American society. Not single moms...not drugs or crack...not deadbeat dads...not the kids....not the teachers...not the media or cable television. It’s not us...IT is THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE POLICIES INSTITUTED BY FED.GOV IN THE LAST 30 YEARS!
That is how it’s done here at FR new poster. Notice how in all that writing I not once mentioned Coulter...or slung baseless insults at other posters that I could not possibly have a clue about. I addressed the piece itself....not only stating my disagreement with it...but also composing in detail in my view what is the correct viewpoint.
Have a good day...and you’re welcome.
I’m a former smoker, started at eighteen years while in the Navy, smoked for eleven years and got to the point it was three packs a day and sometimes a few more. I finally quit at 29 years and now I can’t stand the smell of a cigarette but I have never known of anyone who was so sensitive that a whiff of smoke endangered his life.
Just don't open up a jar of peanut butter near an unsuspecting person. They may also be deathly allergic to peanuts.
In my view, Ann Coulter is comparable to Fredo Corleone's status with Michael Corleone.
I have asthma and have nearly died twice from attacks and second hand smoke especially in an open setting does not scare me in the least. It does bother me in an enclosed area but then I am free to avoid it.
BTW I am ardent supporter of people and business deciding for themselves how to handle smoking.
Typical smoker. Selfish. No one matters but your own addiction. Ever choke on cigarette smoke? Feel your throat close up? Have your eyes and throat burn, your eyes tearing uncontrollably? Ever retch from the sheer stench of cigarette smoke?
What did my father die from? Give you three guesses, but I'm sure you'll get it in one. I'm also sure that smoking contributed to my mother's Alzheimer's disease, with the circulatory problems smoking causes.
Well, if a cigarette smoker presented an imminent threat of death, most state self defense laws would support using lethal force to stop him. Would you feel justified in shooting a cigarette smoker?
I’d rather dump a large bucket of ice cold water over their selfish head. The added benefit would be that it would put out the cigarette that is closing down my breathing.
I'm severely hypothermic. Second hand icewater could kill me.
Still, I believe that people have the right to smoke outside, in their cars, and in their homes. I'm not against smoking, I'm against having to breathe in smoke.
I’m not against their right to smoke. But people have a right to breathe freely as well. If their smoking in their homes, cars, etc. does NOT interfere with my right to breathe, fine. They should only have had to suffer for nearly 2 years as our family did while my father was dying of lung cancer, a direct consequence of his smoking.
I think the cigarettes have a far better chance of doing that than the ice water. Ask my dad. He died from lung cancer. It wasn’t pretty.
I thought we were talking about second hand smoke?
Illegitimacy is a great big elephant in the room, when it comes to social policy.
Nanny State PING!
Thanks for the ping!
Don’y worry your liberal little head, Muffy, we’ll keep trying until we get ya. /s
An allergic reaction requires protein. There is no protein in cigarette smoke.
What these "some people" are experiencing, in your anecdotal opinion is a panic attack, or what physicians used to call "hysteria". Those same "physicians" treated "hysteria" with dildoes and vibrators.
What would you prefer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.