This one really put a burr under my saddle. The arrogance of the Forbes author enrages me. I’m not putting this link up here to get traffic, I’m putting it up here because 1) I don’t want to write twice and 2) any of you Canadian or American Latch-Key kids will also have your blood boiling.
Will SDA get results?
Thank you for your time, last post for a while. Didn’t want to monopolize SDA, but this one just really chaffed my hide.
From the forbes story, the amended legislation reads as follows,,,”In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect”.
I think the senator is batshit crazy to think up a law like this. Non marital means what? If 2 people shack up is that nonmarital and are now considered abusive parents. Is being raised by your grandma nonmarital. If one spouse dies, is the remaining parent now considered an abusive and negligent parent unless they remarry. The wording implies something other then the stated intentions of the bill, which is if you raise kids and don’t have a marriage license, you are considered abusive and negligent to your children by the state. Once that happens, well you know the rest of the story. Look at the crayon gun drawing to see what bureaucrats who administer the laws, interpret and adjudicate those same laws.
You focus on the wrong words and you assume he’s a commie liberal senator.
The tendered legislation says “contributing factors.” If you don’t agree with that, then, well I can’t argue with a tree.
Your concerns about it being taken too far in the literal sense to oppress people, I completely understand. But this is not a leftist offering the legislation. It’s a republican. I think there would be some caveats provided for widows/widowers, etc.
Though, I find your desire to find technicalities instead of focusing on the intent of the legislation…disturbing.
Captain, I like your thinking, and like to hear from you, but personal army requests sink like a submarine with a screen door around SDA.
dwright(PFC 2nd class)
Thank you for your time, last post for a while. Didn’t want to monopolize SDA, but this one just really chaffed my hide.
Posted by Captain at March 2, 2012 11:17 PM
Monopolize all you like. (With Kate’s permission of course) Always interesting. The amended legislation is a bit late as approx. 50% of all school children now come from single parent homes. Perhaps 50 years ago it might have made a difference, but I doubt it. Sh*t for brains is a equal opportunity disease. Both Republicans and Democrats suffer fom it though more Democrats show the obvious symptoms.
pointing out the obvious is racist, sexist or homophobic. Kool-Aid drinkers on the left go apopleptic when someone does it – but let’em, they’re jerks, and at least regular joes & janes can’t say they’ve never heard things explained rationally and will have no excuse if they vote for idiots
Heh. All the “Called-out” comments support Ungar! Quelle surprise! But when you “EXPAND ALL COMMENTS” you get a TOTALLY different picture. Just Forbes’ way of showing that they are merely one of the dead-tree fellow travelers moseying down the ABCNNBCBS yellow brick road…
@captain Though, I find your desire to find technicalities instead of focusing on the intent of the legislation…disturbing.
Well therein lies the rub.The devil is in the details. I have seen many types of legislation that profess to do one thing, but in practice end up having quite the opposite effect. At face value, this law, seems to be just another attempt at state sponsored social engineering, a very slippery slope. The cause is immaterial, it sets precedence. What I find disturbing is any educated individual who profess to stand for free will, free markets, will gladly go along with a law that erodes those very freedoms, because it is the right people, a just cause, who are drafting the law. Where have I heard that before. I stand by my concerns with laws like this. Education is the key here, and maybe the senator should focus his attention on that.
While I understand completely the point that the culture of single parent families has greased the slippery slope, I hardly agree with ‘legislation’ on the issue. For years Gwen Landolt of REAL Woman of Canada has been bringing the issue to the forefront. There is too much ho hum acceptance of sex out of marriage, and that really is the basis for the problem. This is a moral issue, not going to be fixed by government.
This is not a hill to fight on, let alone die on. The wording of the bill is just plain batshit stupid, as northernont has correctly pointed out. It casts a very wide net just for the sake of making some sort of social conservative point. The United States of America is speeding toward fiscal ruin at 100mph and there are still Republicans out there that think this is the time to have fights about social values. Stupid, stupid political party! They’ll yet find a way to reelect Obama!
Sorry Captain. You’re a wise man in many respects, but this one is a fool’s errand.
Remember the administrators of laws like this are the crayon keystone kops and co-parenting school board officials.
There are things you can do to encourage marriage and the family. Harper’s income splitting is a classic example. Unfortunately it applies to “common law partner” which I think should be eliminated from the tax code. Lot’s of stupid women think “common law partner” means something when in fact it’s nothing.
It’s a republican
So when your team passes social engineering laws, it’s different? Wow never heard that one before.
Done and done, good post Captain.
Not normally a cheerleader here, but I agree with northernont completely.
The intent behind a law means, well, bupkis. As we’ve seen over and over, all kinds of well meaning laws end up oppressively interpreted to the detriment of the many. Dead-beat dad laws – sure, it’s a good idea to make dads pay child support, but how’s he supposed to pay when you take away his driver’s license and he can’t keep his job? Never mind that the state’s enforcement of divorce settlements is completely one-way (i.e. visitation and shared custody isn’t enforced, only the onus on dad to pay). As the front page of today’s NP points out, you can’t get a decent burger in a restaurant in Canada these days without the chef in question risking fine or closure. I can understand smoking bans in small enclosed spaces like restaurants or offices, but on patios, or, for the love of God, the beach?
The devil is indeed in the details, and when the details are going to be interpreted by liberal social agencies and liberal courts, I prefer to have no legislation rather than flawed legislation.
Sorry, I should amend my last sentence to read:
The devil is indeed in the details, and when the details are going to be interpreted by neo-fascist social agencies and neo-fascist courts, I prefer to have no legislation rather than flawed legislation.