Skip to main content

Let's Be Like Europe: Starting a New, Occasional Series

Europe, as Progressives never tire of explaining to us when speaking of health care, or education, or snails for dinner, is the gold standard of civilization.

If it works in Europe, and we're not doing it, it's another reason that all values but Progressive values (governmental force in the service of an ideology) are bankrupt.

So, in the interest of furthering America's understanding of the European Statist Utopia, here's a post from Nanny Knows Best about the latest British good government idea: taking fat kids away from their parents:

David Rogers, the LGA [Local Government Association] spokesman on public health, said:

"Councils are increasingly having to consider taking action where parents are putting children's health in real danger.

Councils would step in to deal with an undernourished or neglected child, so should a case with a morbidly obese child be different?

If parents place children at risk through bad diet and lack of exercise is it right for a council to keep the child's health under review?

It is vital that councils, primary care trusts and the NHS work with parents to ensure children don't end up dangerously overweight in the first place.

There needs to be a national debate about the extent to which it is acceptable for local authorities to take action in cases where the children's welfare is in jeopardy."


Of course this would mean ignoring not only civil rights but modern science, as the genetic link to obesity is now beginning to be understood.

But facts should never stand in the way of good public policy, eh?

Just ask linguist and Progressive political guru George Lakoff, the ultimate advocate that truth matters far less in politics than how you frame you position to make it attractive to voters.

Which, given that Lakoff has been providing such advice to the Obama campaign, is hardly surprising, is it?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...