![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 2nd, 2001 10:22 pmReading Material: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer
My husband is a god. Not only did he make me a milkshake with whipped cream and sprinkles, but he also devised a decoy milkshake to distract our son. Speaking of milk I finally found a substitute that I like so I'm going to try and convert. I'm not ready to give up ice cream yet, don't want to rush in, do anything rash.
I was reading Mothering magazine at the library and they did their usual moaning about compulsory medical treatments for newborns, which I conveniently avoided by birthing at home. Then they moved on to praise Sweden for its generous family leave policies, and pillory welfare reform for raising infant mortality rates and hurting single parent families. And I had this epiphany (hardly a new one I'm sure) that it's all the same damn thing. Its reported as bad when the state pokes in its cold, hard nose if their policies clash with natural living, but if they happen to be on the same wavelength then its just peachy wonderful. Its good when the state lowers infant mortality statistics with welfare, but bad when it does it via compulsory medical treatment. It seems to me now that to invite our government to become involved in our parenting choices is to accept the fact that, as individuals, we may not always like the form (or depth) of that involvement. I'm working on a letter to the editor, but I probably just dumbed on to a well known conundrum of the whole liberal/socialist thing.
My husband is a god. Not only did he make me a milkshake with whipped cream and sprinkles, but he also devised a decoy milkshake to distract our son. Speaking of milk I finally found a substitute that I like so I'm going to try and convert. I'm not ready to give up ice cream yet, don't want to rush in, do anything rash.
I was reading Mothering magazine at the library and they did their usual moaning about compulsory medical treatments for newborns, which I conveniently avoided by birthing at home. Then they moved on to praise Sweden for its generous family leave policies, and pillory welfare reform for raising infant mortality rates and hurting single parent families. And I had this epiphany (hardly a new one I'm sure) that it's all the same damn thing. Its reported as bad when the state pokes in its cold, hard nose if their policies clash with natural living, but if they happen to be on the same wavelength then its just peachy wonderful. Its good when the state lowers infant mortality statistics with welfare, but bad when it does it via compulsory medical treatment. It seems to me now that to invite our government to become involved in our parenting choices is to accept the fact that, as individuals, we may not always like the form (or depth) of that involvement. I'm working on a letter to the editor, but I probably just dumbed on to a well known conundrum of the whole liberal/socialist thing.
