‘Mom Seeks Law…’ Is Your Warning That Stupidity Follows
Nine times out of 10. Why? Because, God and Darwin love ‘em, moms are irrational and fierce protectors of their children who will do anything for their kids.
Which on one hand is good, but on the other is exactly why when you see “Mom Seeks Law…” in a headline, it’s going to be a bad idea and go way too far.
Which brings me to today’s little venture into Big Mother politics.
Dallas-area mother challenges Texas law allowing parents to show children pornography
Texas’ devotion to protecting parental rights allows moms and dads to provide pornography to their children.
Now a Dallas-area mother is trying to change that, saying that her ex-husband faces no punishment for showing their young daughters online images of three-way adult encounters.
She’s getting support from a variety of sources, including a Panhandle prosecutor who wanted to charge the man but concluded he had no way to win a case.
No, I don’t support showing porn to kids, but yes, how I teach my kid about sex education is not your business or the state’s business and blah blah blah. But this isn’t a political argument.
For starters, the sloppy writing suggests it’s an established fact that the dad in question did what the sentence says. It is not. It’s an allegation. And when we read further into the story, we learn it’s an allegation from a mother who did not have custody of her own kids.
This is big red flag No. 1. Divorces are nasty, and child custody fights even more so. Otherwise honest mothers will tell you they will do anything to keep their kids, and that includes lying. Especially if they’re lying about ex-husbands.
Red flag No. 2 — she didn’t have custody. When a mother doesn’t get primary custody or joint custody of kids, almost invariably there’s something really ugly going on with her.
Red flag No. 3 — the scenario described further down in the story doesn’t pass the smell test:
The Dallas-area woman said her three grade-school-age daughters were living with their father earlier this year when he started drinking, woke two of them late at night and showed them porn on his computer. They later told a counselor, who alerted authorities. Amarillo police investigated, found the girls believable and sought advice from Farren’s office before proceeding.
This doesn’t add up. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s improbable. As described in this admittedly poorly reported and badly written story, it doesn’t fit the profile.
It does, however, fit the script of someone trying to get back custody of their kids.
As for “Amarillo police investigated, found the girls believable and sought advice from Farren’s office before proceeding” need I remind you that Fort Collins police thought the Balloon Boy’s family was credible until the kid admitted on morning television it was a hoax?
So given all that we’ve been presented by the paper, I call BS on this woman.
Do kids need to be protected? Of course.
But regardless of whether this lady is lying, do we need the kind of laws that result from crusading moms? Absolutely not.
Monday Escape: Halloween
A hippie chick just sent me this bit of awesome. (I think there’s a hidden message.)
Also, credit where it’s due.
Barry O: The So-Called Founders Didn’t Redistribute Wealth
***MONDAY UPDATE: Here’s why these quotes are so plausible — Barry has been on board the redistribution train for a long time. This is a link to an NPR interview with Barry, circa 2001, in his own words and voice. Enjoy.***
There are many who will defend the ‘free market.’ But who will defend the single mother of four working three jobs. When a system is allowed to be free at the expense of its citizens, then it is tyranny.
… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.
This is from the college thesis written by Barack Obama.
I’d give you the rest for context, but it’s sealed like a state secret. Hmmmm.
If Barry has his doubts about the constitution, is it okay for me to have my doubts about him?
Update Friday Afternoon: The source for this particular Obama endorsement of redistribution appears questionable.
From Austin: DJ Subsonic’s “I Own Me”
Still on deadline x 4 now, so just for fun, via Reason, Austin’s own NeemaV aka DJ Subsonic.
Dallas Libertarians Are Talking Health Care
It’s new web series of locally made videos, and here’s the first. This is pretty good stuff.
With government takeover of medical care being sold as “reform” by the administration-directed media, nice to hear some alternative voices.
For specifics on market-based alternatives to government-run health care, Whole Foods CEO John McKay’s list of eight ideas remains one of the most succinct and thoughtful.
1. Remove the legal obstacles which slow the creation of high deductible health insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts. The combination of high deductible health insurance and Health Savings Accounts is one solution that could solve many of our health care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high deductible health insurance plan, and provides up to $1,800 per year in additional health care dollars through deposits into their own Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness. Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of team member satisfaction.
2. Change the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have exactly the same tax benefits. Right now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible for employers but private health insurance is not. This is unfair.
3. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that health insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable everywhere.
4. Repeal all government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance many billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual health insurance customer preferences and not through special interest lobbying.
5. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors into paying insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are ultimately being passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
6. Make health care costs transparent so that consumers will understand what health care treatments cost. How many people know what their last doctor’s visit cost? What other goods or services do we as consumers buy without knowing how much they will cost us? We need a system where people can compare and contrast costs and services.
7. Enact Medicare reform: we need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and move towards greater patient empowerment and responsibility.
8. Permit individuals to make voluntary tax deductible donations on their IRS tax forms to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or any other government program.
Apparently I Hate America
And I’m a terrorist or something.
“The Republican Party [and, one presumes, all of us non-Republicans laughing at Barry's life being defined by good intention, no accomplishments, ha[ve] thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO.
Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm
Click here for Young Pioneers.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Lawyers, Guns & Money: Challenge to Chicago Law Could Restore Economic Liberty
Still on deadline, so not much from me this week. But here’s fellow Dallasite and Reasonoid Jacob Sullum on how the challenge to Chicago’s oppressive anti-gun laws could be a boon for economic liberty.
The right to weapons was one of the liberties frequently cited by the 14th Amendment’s backers, since disarmed blacks were defenseless against attacks by Klansmen and local officials. As reflected in post–Civil War legislation that the amendment was intended to reinforce, its supporters also were concerned about economic liberty: the right to own and exchange property, make and enforce contracts, and work in the occupation of one’s choice—all freedoms the Southern states tried to deny former slaves.
Today A Great Documentary Premiers
Screw Ken Burns. If you want to live, take notes.
