27 June 2007

Policy for Two-Parent Families

"Parental involvement means not only a preparatory effort to help our parents get up to snuff, but also to make sure that we do everything we can to have two-parent families."
- Mitt Romney

Left to speculate about the policy implications of this kind of statement, I will do my best to fill in where Mitt left off.

Of course, it's a catch-22. If you want to have children, to take responsibility for launching a life into the world, you obviously lack the judgment needed to actually raise them. Yet there is no reason to single out child raising. Misinformed optimism is the catalyst for all projects.

Many candidates talk about the importance of a child having two parents. I agree. Not only do I think that children should have two parents, but I think that the rich do it right: children deserve nannies and a parade of private tutors to complement their parents' limited repertoire.

In order to ensure that children are raised properly, we could neuter each infant at birth. They could be neutered by a simple procedure that can be easily reversed once they have demonstrated financial and emotional stability and passed a series of courses on parenting. The license to reproduce should be harder to get than a license to drive or hunt pigeons. We could even make financial independence a prerequisite to reproduction, thus ensuring the above-mentioned childhood nirvana of nannies and support staff.

Obviously, this could create some issues. Birth rates may drop precipitously. One can easily imagine a future in which the few qualified to be born would be hounded by calls from worried pensioners, concerned about stimulating enough economic activity to generate deposits into social security in a world with 100 retirees for every 1 working stiff.

And of course, if reproduction were outlawed, only outlaws would reproduce, suggesting a society even stranger than this one.

But these are merely details and I’ve contacted the campaigns emphasizing two-parent families for clarification of how such issues would be addressed. You can be reassured that their emphasis on traditional families are not just empty words, designed to trigger head nodding. There must be policy implications – or why would they mention such issues? I'll keep you posted as I learn more. I can hardly wait.


Anonymous said...

Rotflmao! What have you been eating, Ron? Seriously.

As a side note, I am thinking of waxing the dog. Poor thing she is suffering in this heat!! Do a butt nekkid rain dance for me, will ya?!

Ron Davison said...

isn't the term, "What have you been drinking?"

I was once asked by a co-worker, "What kind of wine goes with fruit loops?" For some reason, it seems easier to point fingers at the stomach than the brain, but alas, my intake has been all the normal stuff - carbs, fats, proteins, and water.

Anonymous said...

I didn't point fingers at your brain because it's not you who is spewing ridiculous, fascist nonsense. You're an intelligent person.

What goes into the stomach feeds the brain, people. It's always the people with the crappy diets who'll fight to the death to prove otherwise, dragging the rest of humanity down to their level. Like cry babies who want a pacifier or an insecurity blanket.

I mean, sometimes, I'll bitch and say people should be handed out birth control at birth, but I would never actually say that in public except in this context, you know? I reserve that type of bitching to when I am venting in private because I just witnessed something apalling, like a grocery cart full of &-%$#!! fruit loops. Put some God damned fruit in your loops, take out all that *hit and then come talk to me.

Maybe our political candidates should pass certain common sense tests before they run for office. I'd get a real kick if those tests were performed in real time on the net in front of everybody.

I'd want to see their dietary habits as well as their drinking habits documented much the same way we do with our astronauts. Chronic alcoholism and binge drinking impede judgment and these are fashionable behaviors in colleges and high schools, becoming lifestyles in adulthood as students become dependent on the numbing effects in order to cope with the cruelty of alcohol culture. Every creepy, filthy adult I ever met was an alcoholic. It makes us cruel and hard and stupid because it numbs our sensibilities when it's abused. And I am not an extremist. I just know how to appreciate the stuff without drowning myself in it.

Now THAT'S a type of fascism that at least adds up to a valid scientific picture. The relationship between diet and behavior; between lifestyle and policy.

What a massive difference I see in my own performance, optimism and energy level when I have the discipline to treat my temple with respect out of regard for those in my care.

Yeah-- I'll shut up now. We'll all just blame it on the humidity.

Anonymous said...

But if you grew up without a sex drive, I wonder how many people would want it? I forget who said it, but "The position is ridiculous, the pleasure is transitory, and the results are damnable."

On the serious side, I don't want politicians of any stripe telling me what kind of family is best for me. I'll make that decision for myself. (Unless there are some serious modifications to the constitution, there's not much ol' Mitt can do to enforce his opinions, anyway.)

Life Hiker said...

Actually, humans have had many types of social organizations that worked. Polygamy, for example, was the norm in Israel during biblical times and is allowed in Muslim culture today - and I won't say anything about Mormons. Matriarchy was common in Africa. Some ancient Greeks separated children from their parents at a young age and put them in dorms. If you can think of a way for humans to organize, it's probably been done. So, Mitt & Co. are out to lunch when they talk about a "natural" family of two opposite-sex parents.

I'm sick of political pandering that focuses on fringe issues at a time when our country's future has been jeopardized by our elected leaders' foolishness in fiscal and foreign policy. But then again, those who elected these jerks, and their children, should reap the consequences of their stupidity. It's too bad the rest of us will have to tag along.

Anonymous said...

Family "norms" are structured around our survival needs. They make the damned rules and we have to live however we can in order to survive their dumb rules which are just obstacles made in disregard of our needs.

I don't see how these isues of paligamy and matriarchy even enter the picture, although I suppose it is a welcome bit of perspective for the uneducated. The problem is that this man is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.

We've figured out how to prosper- at least in the short term- well beyond our needs, and in doing so, we are DESTROYING the environment which future families-- whatever their damned "structure"-- will need to live in!!

And their only motivation in structuring our family "norms" is in kissing whatever butt of whatever power base one is sucking votes from, no matter how cumbersome and obsolete it might be. Cowards!!

And I disagree they should suffer they consequences of their own stupidity. Their noses should be rubbed in it, and the rest of us should be enabled to live in peace, free of arrogance and ignorance by leaders who are EDUCATED to see beyond the purse and apron strings.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

stop talking for a , second get off your high judgemental horses and get to know this ...what was i saying?

'I'll end this with a head nod,

Anonymous said...

Pthhhht!!! :P