Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Election Day

Well, the POTUS is on the TeeVee, jamming his -- no doubt very expensive -- shoe into his piehole ... again.

I swear, the urge to giggle insanely every-time someone gushes about what a wonderful speaker the current POTUS is is getting nigh-impossible to contain.

The gaffe du jour is from the above-linked video:

"Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make."

*blink, blink*

There are a not-inconsiderable number of moms who want to do exactly this. And why do you think you get a "want" in a mother's choice?

I swear, these days damned near ever single idiot at the government level is all for people having choices -- as long as those choices are picked from a very narrow, pre-approved list.

"What sort of career do you want?"

"I'd like to be a home-maker."

"Whoa! Whoa, whoa, whoa! That's not on the Approved List of Careers!"
~~

"What would you like to play at recess?"

"I wanna play cops-n-robbers! Wiv finger guns!"

"Oh. Why don't you take these pills and go speak to the nice psychologist."
~~

"When should we schedule you for Gender Studies?"

"I'm an engineering major. Gender Studies has nothing to do with my field of study."

"It's mandatory to graduate."
~~

"I'm getting married!"

"That's wonderful, George. Who's the lucky lady?"

"Frank."

"You can't do that!"
~~

It's not the place of Government to decide who can marry whom. It's not the place of Government to order someone to bake a cake for someone else. It's not the place of Government to frown upon someones choice in career.

Period.

And they need to stop sodding doing it. Or, failing that, we need to start electing people to Government who will keep their beaks out of people's private lives, damn it!

*sigh*

Today's rant brought to you by Election Day.

LawDog

20 comments:

Scott_S said...

LD - any chance of you running for office in say the next two years?

Wraith said...

Problem is, the overwhelming majority of those who seek office, do so specifically to be able to tell others how to live. We must not lend these people the legitimacy of our vote; instead, we should give them the only response such a ridiculous attitude deserves.

Laugh at them, heartily, then go on with your business. And in case they get out of sorts about it, have a bucket of tar and a couple of chickens on standby.

Retired Spook said...

Rope, lamp-post, politician. Some assembly required.

Until we start decorating the streetlights with overstepping jackwagons from the political class, we are going to have to live with overstepping jackwagons from the political class.

Stupid should hurt, and until it does, there's really no reason to stop being stupid.

As the late, and much lamented Gen. LeMay once opined, "If you kill enough of them, they'll stop."

~Katherine~ said...

Leaving aside the deeper issues vis-à-vis wedding cakes...

...have the fools involved never learned the all-important life lesson of "never, ever, EVER mess with the people who handle your food?"

Seriously. It's just a really bad idea.

Anodyne said...

Admittedly, it could have been phrased better, but I choose to take the comment in the most benign form: "people should not have to make a choice between earning less and taking care of their children personally".

Which is true! It shouldn't be an either/or choice like that: "either you stay in the workplace (and get picked at for dropping the kids with a babysitter or a daycare during work), or you take time off to raise the kids and get paid less if you manage to get back into the workplace afterwards".

Unfortunately, that this even is an issue is one of the things that needs fixing about society.

Celeste said...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Anodyne's interpretation is what POTUS meant, not that people shouldn't choose to be homemakers.

CDH said...

The problem with Anodyne's point is that taking a few years off from the workplace reduces your experience in the field, which reduces your earnings for you age. Salary based on skill and experience level and all that. Many would have us overlook that little fact and scream 'gender inequality' when a 45 year old woman and a 45 year old man in similar jobs have disparate earnings, conveniently overlooking the fact that said 45 YO woman took 16+ years off to get her sprogs through school. Worth it? As the husband/father/Dad in a 1 earner family with a wife who gave up a good engineering career to raise our kids, I say heck yes. YMMV.

Old NFO said...

Agreed!!! Sigh...

Gothelittle Rose said...

You like that? Michelle Obama told a mostly-black audience that if they voted, they could have fried chicken for dinner.

My favorite response was also the one that popped up most often in the comments section: "Can we have watermelon for dessert, too?"

C. S. P. Schofield said...

I think it's a tactical error to argue that the government shouldn't do these things because it's none of its business. There are whole swaths of morons, some of them with multiple graduate degrees, who sincerely and deeply believe that it IS the government's business. And that shouldn't be surprising, since the idea that the government serves the people rather than the other way 'round is a VERY radical one, by historical standards.

I think the argument we should be making is that the government shouldn't do these things (and many more besides) because the government is so friction' awful at it. The Statists can puff and blow all they want about how the State should do this, that, or the other, and we aren't going to convince enough of them to matter. But a lot of them aren't quite so lost to sense that they can't see that the government, by trying to do so much, does the vast majority of it so badly that it would be better if it ceased.

Another Jonathan said...

I am completely against the anti-women's-choice agenda and everyone who stands for it.

I'm also pro-life.

Another Jonathan said...

Actually, on further review, it seems it was something else entirely: Obama was citing the high cost of quality daycare, and saying he didn't want moms who wished to go to work and send their kids to daycare to have no option but to stay home and do it themselves.

But this should not detract in any way from the LawDog's point: We have too many politicians telling people how to run their lives, and it needs to stop.

And further, considering the vast "economic benefit" that Obama said was to be gained from moms choosing the workforce, LawDog probably has a fair reading of the intent of the speech, if not the intent of this particular phrase.

Roger said...

I believe that obama's intent was to obliquely refer to the socialist plan to have the state "educate" all children. The concept of ALL children in state run or state approved daycare using state mandated curricula is part of socialist core belief.
When mom is in the workforce the state is educating the kids.

JohninMd.(HELP?!??) said...

We know what the nice Socialist POTUS meant. "Sure, lady, keep working. All we want is to help, and give us a COUPLE MORE YEARS to progra -- er, EDUCATE your cbillun's for ya.......never too soon to start getting their minds right for the Hitlerjugend Corps, right? Then NSA won't have to bug everything, your children will report your impure thoughts about the Gubmint of the freest bestest country in da whirled.
Yes, we have GIVEN government too much control over our daily lives. (or allowed them to take it with little resistance, take your pick) I'm still in shock here in Md. that Hogan (R) won the Governor's race, and rather handily at that. But there's still 7 out of 8 dem. Critters headed to Congress. The State Legislature is still blue, and we have a new Attorney General who as chair of the Sen. Judicial comm. TWICE killed "shall issue" CCW bills that the house passed UNANIMOUSLY with a desk drawer veto. Here in Md. Getting a CCW is a "mother, may I?" proposition, and no guarantee you'll keep it if the state PO-PO don't want to reissue.(sigh) Sorry, had to vent. Brothers and sisters in the "Free" states, pray for the Brethren stuck behind enemy lines tonight. Conn. may be at war soon, if the raids start and folks resist, as has been said......

Auntie J said...

I don't listen to POTUS speeches for this exact reason...but as a stay-at-home mom, when I discovered this, I was incensed.

I *do* have a job: RAISING MY KIDS.

I also have a job that pays me more than hugs, kisses, and "I wuv you, Mommy": I run my own little business, doing contracted copy/content editing. Out of my home. So that I can stay home and be with my kids.

POTUS needs to keep his yap shut about motherhood. He has no experience.

And certainly he has no idea what it's like to WANT to stay home and raise your kids, and thusly CHOOSE to do so.

Anonymous said...

Auntie J

I agree with you completely!

Ulises from CA

Wombat said...

Tip of my hat to Auntie J. I try to avoid listening to our fearless leader due to blood pressure issues. As the daughter of a mother who chose kids over career, I can say you are making a great choice for your kids and society and yourself. Obama not only is clueless about motherhood, he strikes me as pretty dang clueless about business (and a rather lengthy list of other things) as well.

Heather Rauschenberger said...

Only reason I work right now - hubby and I are paying off a last few bills and saving up to buy a house debt-free. Yep, no mortgage for us - not that a bank would let us have one anyhow. We don't buy unless we can pay for it outright, no credit cards, no nothing ... so our credit scores are in the toilet because we live within our means instead of spending well outside of them. Anywho ... just leads to me and our plan - that once the house is bought and paid for, we have title and keys in hand, I am going back to being just a housewife. I did it for the first 18 months of our marriage until we decided as a couple what we wanted for our future and went from there. My job will last probably another 2-3 years and then poof ... I will be happily, delightfully, and ecstactically unemployed again. By CHOICE and design. I can't WAIT.

Shell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shell said...

Not "need" to, *have* to. Speak in imperatives and you'll act so.