We Found 'Julia's' E-Harmony Match

Tim Hawkins Says What the President Ought to Say


"The Government Can."

Along with several other commentators, we noticed that there is no man in 'Julia's' life, even though 'Zachary' magically appears to claim benefits at the appropriate time. The staff of THYME was concerned about this oversight, so we approached the good folks at E-Harmony and this is the match they found for her.

Meet 'Julia,' and Usher in '1984!'

Is it Any Coincidence that the Woman's Name is 'Julia?'

A Nanny State Update


I reported earlier how a child in a Staunton, Virginia was 'busted' for bringing a Wendy's lunch to school [1.]

Barack Obama presents: "The Life of Julia" [click to read]. Here is a 'womb to tomb' nanny state in all it's glory... provided you aren't aborted before you leave the womb! Here is government taking care of you at every stage of your life. Of course that life might just become shorter if you become too expensive to keep alive under 'Obamacare,' but I digress. This wonderful presentation produced by The Ministry of Truth -- (Minitrue, in Newspeak), makes it clear that "Big Brother is Watching (out for) You." That nasty old Mitt Romney will cut the programs that give you all the goodies.

So remember:

"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!"

Bearing Drift Has More [click to read],
Human Events Has More [click to read].
Obama's Orwellian Unemployment Numbers [click to read] from Rush Limbaugh.

A Better Life for Julia [click to read] thanks to the Heritage Foundation!

"But the name Julia actually means “youthful, energetic.” It’s a great name that belongs to many self-governing women across America—who put themselves through school, marry, raise children, volunteer at the local church or charity, and run their own businesses (despite miles of red tape). It’s the responsibility of every citizen—not just the Julias—to resist the tyranny of the burecratic state and ensure that the ideal citizen (man or woman) remains a self-governing one." -- Julia Shaw (I am NOT making this up)!, writing for The Heritage foundation

Nanny State Update

School Principal Declares: "Happy O'Green Day"


I reported earlier how a child in a Staunton, Virginia was 'busted' for bringing a Wendy's lunch to school [1.]

The Ultimate Politically Correct Holiday Renaming!

Now they're not hanging men and women for the 'wearin' of the green' at Wilbraham, Massachussetts' Soule Road School, but school principal Lisa Curtin has banished the celebration of St. Patrick's Day. Students now celebrate "O'Green Day." Although it sounds like an occasion created for encouraging pupils to drink O'Doul's (non-alcoholic beer), students will actually be encouraged to eat green vegetables in the cafeteria (why am I not surprised)?

In fact, I'm expecting whole lesson plans designed to encourage students to pester their parents into buying Chevy Volts, Priuses and other activites designed to save the planet. Why not a unit on endangered snake species while we're at it. Instead of kissing the Blarney Stone, let's have a film by Al Gore on Global Warming. That would help define 'Blarney' to a whole new generation! Yes, I think O'Green Day will be celebrated all-out by certain people!

And while we're at it, let's confiscate any gold foil wrapped choclate coins the kids have to further protect the government school lunch monopoly! Leprechaun food is 'competitive food.' [2.]

Valentine's Day at the school has been renamed to "Caring and Kindness Day," say parents at the school. Fox News [click to read] has more on the story.


Surprise visitor: A green-headed mallard in the back yard.

The Wearing of The Green

by Dion Boucicault (1820-1890) [3.]

O Paddy dear, and did you hear the news that going round?
The shamrock is forbid by law to grow on Irish ground;
St. Patrick's Day no more we'll keep, his colours can't be seen,
For there's a bloody law against the wearing of the green.
I met with Napper Tandy and he took me by the hand,
And he said, "How's poor old Ireland, and how does she stand?"
She's the most distressful counterie that ever yet was seen,
And they're hanging men and women for the wearing of the green.

Then since the colour we must wear is England's cruel red,
Sure Ireland's sons will ne'er forget the blood that they have shed.
You may take a shamrock from your hat and cast it on the sod,
It will take root and flourish there though underfoot it's trod.
When law can stop the blades of grass from growing as they grow,
And when the leaves in summer-time their verdure dare not show,
Then will I change the colour that I wear in my caubeen
But 'till that day, please G-d, I'll stick to wearing of the green.

But if at last our colour should be torn from Ireland's heart,
Our sons with shame and sorrow from this dear old isle will part;
I've heard a whisper of a land that lies beyond the sea
Where rich and poor stand equal in the light of freedom's day.
O Erin, must we leave you driven by a tyrant's hand?
Must we ask a mother's blessing from a strange and distant land?
Where the cruel cross of England shall nevermore be seen,
And where, please G-d, we'll live and die still wearing of the green!

Nanny State Update

Obama Advisor: "Kids from Big Families Have Small IQs"


I reported earlier how a child in a Staunton, Virginia was 'busted' for bringing a Wendy's lunch to school [1.]

How Junk Science Drives US Population Policy

I just heard about this one on Rush Limbaugh's show today. (CNSNews.com) - John P. Holdren, the top science adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote in a book he co-authored with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich that children from larger families have lower IQs.

The book—"Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions"—argued that the United States government had a “responsibility to halt the growth of the American population.”

“It surely is no accident that so many of the most successful individuals are first or only children,” wrote Holdren and the Ehrlichs, “nor that children of large families (particularly with more than four children), whatever their economic status, on the average perform less well in school and show lower I.Q. scores than their peers from small families.”

Holdren and the Ehrlichs published "Human Ecology" with W.H. Freeman and Company in 1973. In June 2000, a study published in American Pyschologist debunked the notion that children in larger families have lower I.Q.s. But when Holdren appeared in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in 2009 for a confirmation hearing on his appointment to run the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he continued to argue for the benefits of “smaller families” on other bases.

In "Human Ecology," Holdren and the Ehrlichs concluded: “Population control is absolutely essential if the problems now facing mankind are to be solved.”

“Political pressure must be applied immediately to induce the United States government to assume its responsibility to halt the growth of the American population,” they wrote.

Holdren and the Ehrlichs also called in "Human Ecology" for redistributing wealth on a global basis. “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being,” they wrote in their conclusions.

In a section of the book entitled, “Solutions,” in a chapter entitled, “Population Limitation,” the future Obama White House science adviser joined with the Ehrlichs in writing: “Any set of programs that is to be successful in alleviating the set of problems described in the foregoing chapters must include measures to control the growth of the human population.”

The authors then questioned the values of parents who have large families.

“Certain values conflict directly with numbers, although numbers may also be considered a value by some people, such as businessmen (who see bigger markets), politicians (who see more political power), and parents of large families,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

“Those who promote numbers of people as a value in itself, however, may be overlooking the cheapness such abundance often brings,” they said.

“One form of conflict between values and numbers arises in the choice between having many deprived children or having fewer who can be raised with the best care, education, and opportunity for successful adulthood,” they said on pages 228-229. “This dilemma is equally acute whether it is posed to a family or a society. It surely is no accident that so many of the most successful individuals are first or only children; nor that children of large families (particularly with more than four children), whatever their economic status, on the average perform less well in school and show lower I.Q. scores than their peers from small families.”

In a footnote to this passage, Holdren and the Ehrlichs cite a “report of a National Academy of Sciences Study Panel” that “includes several articles on the advantages to children of being first-born or in small families.”

American Psychologist Study Disproves Holdren

In the June 2000 issue of American Pyschologist, a team of authors joined to debunk the notion that smaller families somehow produced higher “quality” or more intelligent children. The team included Joseph Lee Rodgers of the Department of Psychology at the University of Oklahoma, Harrington Cleveland of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina, David C. Rowe from the Division of Family Studies at the University of Arizona, and Edwin van den Oord of the Department of Psychology at the University of Utrecht.

The study these scholars did was based on an analysis of data from actual siblings collected by the federally sponsored National Longitudinal Study of Youth.

“A large amount of publicity has circulated over the past two decades suggesting to parents that they should limit their family size in the interest of, in Blake's (1981) words, ‘child quality,’” Rodgers and his co-authors wrote. “Zajonc (1975) published a popular article entitled ‘Dumber by the Dozen’ that certainly must have led some parents to believe they should limit their childbearing lest they place their children into the diluted intellectual environment predicted for later birth orders, close spacing, and larger families.

“The columnist Dr. Joyce Brothers answered a question sent into Good Housekeeping (February, 1981) by a mother of four asking if she should consider having another baby as follows: ‘Studies have shown that children reared in small families are brighter, more creative, and more vigorous than those from large families,’” the authors noted.

“However,” they said, “the belief that, for a particular set of parents in a modem country like the United States, a larger family will lead to children with lower IQs appears to be, simply, wrong. The belief that birth order effects on intelligence act directly to decrease the intelligence of children born later in a given family also appears to be, simply, wrong.”

“Do large U.S. families make low-IQ children? No,” said the authors. “Are birth order and intelligence related to one another within U.S. families? No.”

In a chapter of a book ("U.S Policy and the Global Environment") published in November 2000, Holdren called for national and international policies aimed at reducing family size as a means of forestalling “global climate disruption.”

“That the impacts of global climate disruption may not become the dominant sources of environmental harm to humans for yet a few more decades cannot be a great consolation, given that the time needed to change the energy system enough to avoid this outcome is also on the order of a few decades,” wrote Holdren. “It is going to be a very tight race. The challenge can be met, but only by employing a strategy that embodies all six of the following components: … increased national and international support for measures that address the motivations and the means for reducing family size.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing in 2009, Holdren said he no longer believed determining optimal population was the proper role of government. However, he did say that appropriate government policies would have the result of decreasing family sizes.

“I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have,” Holdren testified. “I also believe that many of those policies will have the effect, and have had the effect in the past, of lowering birth rates because when you provide health care for women, opportunities for women, education, people tend to have smaller families on average and it ends up being easier to solve some of our other problems when that occurs.”

The Obama administration has issued a regulation, set to take effect on Aug. 1, that will require all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortifacients without any fees or co-pay. Many American religious leaders, including all of the nation's Roman Catholic bishops, have denounced the regulation as an attack on religious liberty because it will force many Americans to act against their consciences and the teachings of their faith.

I am the first of five children. As Mom went on, her brood got better. My sister is a successful realtor and biological illustrator. The next in line, a girl, specialized in medical technology. The two youngest, both boys, are NASA engineers. I'm the runt of the litter and I've successfully worked as an architectural illustrator, model maker and educational illustrator for twenty-seven years as the owner of my own studio... and I am also the oldest. So much for Mr. Holdren's theories.

"This Isn't China, Is It?"

Preschooler Busted for Home-packed Lunch in NC

A Nanny State Update
by Matt Willoughby of North Carolina Civitas
Used by Permission


I reported earlier how a child in a Staunton, Virginia was 'busted' for bringing a Wendy's lunch to school [1.]

A mother in Hoke County complains her daughter was forced to eat a school lunch because a government inspector determined her home-made lunch did not meet nutrition requirements. In fact, all of the students in the NC Pre-K program classroom at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford had to accept a school lunch in addition to their lunches brought from home.

NC Pre-K (before this year known as More at Four) is a state-funded education program designed to “enhance school readiness” for four year-olds.

The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.

The mother says the girl was so intimidated by the inspection process that she was too scared to eat all of her homemade lunch. The girl ate only the chicken nuggets provided to her by the school, so she still didn’t eat a vegetable.

The mother says her daughter doesn’t like vegetables and – like most four year olds – will only eat them at home under close supervision.

In an interview with the Civitas Institute the mother said “I can’t put vegetables in her lunchbox. I’m not a millionaire and I’m not going to put something in there that my daughter doesn’t eat and I’ve done gone round and round with the teacher about that and I’ve told her that. I put fruit in there every day because she is a fruit eater. Vegetables, let me take care of my business at home and at night and that’s when I see she’s eating vegetables. I either have to smash it or tell her if you don’t eat your vegetables you’re going to go to bed.”

The mother added, “It’s just a headache to keep arguing and fighting. I’ve even wrote a note to her teachers and said do not give my daughter anything else unless it comes out of her lunchbox and they are still going against me and putting a milk in front of her every day.

“Friday she came home and said ‘Mom, they give me vegetable soup and a milk,’” said the mother.

“So I went to the cafeteria to make sure she had no fee and it’s not being charged to her account yet,” she continued, ” but what concerned me was that I got a letter from the principal and it says students who do not bring a healthy lunch will be offered the missing portions which may result in a fee from the cafeteria. So if I don’t stay on top of her account on a weekly basis there’s that opportunity that charges could be put on her account and then if I let it go too far then it’s like I’m going to have a big battle.”

The principal of West Hoke Elementary, Jackie Samuels, says none of the children’s parents were asked to pay for the school food. While the parents may not have to pay, it was still an expense for the school to provide the extra food. A phone call to the Hoke County Schools Superintendent to inquire as to how much additional expense this would impose on the school was not returned.

The mother, who lives in Fayetteville, sent a statement to state Rep. G.L. Pridgen (R-Robeson) detailing her complaint. Pridgen says he was shocked to hear it. Pridgen has since learned this is a nationwide practice based on federal guidelines.

An assistant to Pridgen says the girl’s grandmother was also upset and asked, “This isn’t China, is it?”

The government inspector was from the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised program at the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The program gives schools a grade based on standards that include USDA meal guidelines enforced by the N.C. Division of Early Childhood Development.

The nutrition standards for pre-K lunch require milk, two servings of fruit or vegetable, bread or grains and a meat or meat alternative. The school didn’t receive a high grade from the January assessment because the home-made lunches didn’t meet those guidelines. The mother points out the only thing on that list her daughter’s home lunch didn’t have was milk, so she doesn’t understand why the girl was given a complete school meal as a supplement.

The mother says her next step is to sit down with the principal and if nothing is done then she plans to go to the school board.

A Lesson in "Choice and Competition"

Nanny State Update from 'The Journey'



It's a Dad's dilemma. I've been there, done that, but a dear friend of mine recently went through it with some unimagined consequences.

A parent of a young child, running late to get that child to school, decides to forgo the homemade lunch and stops at Wendy's to get something. Surely this would not cause any problems.

Upon arrival at the school, the child's drink from Wendy's was taken because 'it is not approved as healthy.' Consciencious parent forks over milk money to the child and goes off to work. The administrator now holds on to the child's Wendy's meal and at lunch time the child has to eat the meal in the office. The reason: The government lunch program does not allow 'competitor's' products.

Wow! Use a broad brush with that and you could ban the whole lunch from home thing... unless you make everything from scratch. Any packaged portion of a brown bag lunch could be considered 'competitor.' You get the picture. I'm including a link to Tom Harkin's Letter [click to read] explaining the whole 'healthy lunch' thing. It is instructive.

But here are the facts. The children in this family are all thin and athletic. They play soccer and run track. They are fed very healthy meals at home. They need no 'nanny state' intervention.

As to Dave Thomas, who created Wendy's. His Adoption initiatives and other programs that he started have done more to help real children in real situations than the 'uber-nanny state' ever will.
___________________________________________________
On Tyranny and Liberty [click to read] by Myron Magnet in City Journal

Would the Founders Approve of the Nation We've Made?

Slouching Toward Sweden III

The Oberstar Transportation Plan, Lifestyle Modification

Tertium Quids [click to read] reported it. The Heritage Foundation Dissects it Here [click to read]. Fishersville Mike [click to read] is straightforward about how Americans will react to it. The 775-page bill known as the Surface Transportation Authorization Act (STAA)reauthorizes the federal highway and transit programs that expired on September 30 for another six years. The problem is that this bill deals with more than just transportation.

Heritage Foundation states: "If enacted into law, Oberstar's STAA would mark a dramatic, harmful change in federal transportation policy by:

Shifting resources from cars to trolleys and buses,

Requiring a huge tax increase to fund these new commitments,

Centralizing transportation decisions in Washington,

Necessitating a substantial increase in the number of state, local, and federal government employees,

and Discouraging the private sector from investing in surface transportation projects."

Higher Taxes for Social Engineering

Heritage continues: "As written, many provisions of STAA have two primary purposes:

Deterring the use of automobiles; and Forcing residential and commercial development into higher density urban communities where public transit, walking, and bicycling would be the main form of transportation."

"To do this, Oberstar's bill would encourage and require states and metropolitan planning organizations to use new land use regulations that would lead to much higher densities than Americans now prefer."

And all this would require an additional $150-$200 billion in taxes over the next six years!

The reason for these drastic measures: reduction of greenhouse gasses. Yes, look for the government to try to move us into flats in some monolithic high rise buildings.

The problem is that with global warming being steadily debunked and given our desire as Americans to live in the village with a great degree of mobility, these are unnecessary costs and we can not afford to bear them right now.

Ironically state level Democrats often run promising to improve transportation. Their answer is to collect more taxes and build more roads. And that brings me to my point. Government in many cases created the problems in the first place.

Much of the overpaved suburban landscape is created in response to planning criteria in the first place. One of my favorite examples is a training center for foreign students where the county required sixty more parking spaces than necessary. Their reasoning: code required it. My client's reasoning: short-term visitors from developing nations won't be bringing their cars!

Overlapping parking requirement with other businesses, nonstandard road sizes, deleting large deceleration lanes and creative clustering in rural areas all require special permits, extra hearings and extra expense. The incentive is there to build what you know passed the month before.

In 1947 the British produced similar legislation in order to preserve the surrounding countryside. This resulted in British homes being the smallest and most expensive in any advanced country. British politicians are now seeking to change the law to make housing more affordable.

I would argue that preserving our rural land resources is an important goal. Tax policy [Francis Chester's revolution] would go a long way in securing this goal. Aaron Sime, the Libertarian candidate for state senate, presented the concept of locking in tax rates on rural land to the valuation at the time of sale. Father to Son/Daughter transfers would not trigger a new valuation. Here's another. Builders howl at the imposition of 'impact fees' but here's how 'impact' might be fairly treated. If you build within established infrastructure, as in infill projects, you pay no fee. New projects requiring additional government infrastructure would be subject to a fee system. Building were no infrastructure exists or is planned would require the developer to provide roads and utility construction as part of the cost of the project. Thus there would be a cost advantage to re-using the existing urban infrastructure but not a mandate.


Proposed Village Center for Crozet.

Village centers like this one proposed for Crozet would be a winning solution for all. The concept calls for taking the old strip mall and making a multiuse village center that would anchor the town around a pedestrian friendly grouping of condominiums and businesses. Indeed it would seem to productive to explore transforming our suburbs into Jefferson's villages. Link the village centers with the bus system where the density allows for it. Allow 'granny flats' and garden plots in floodplains and let a little creative diversity flow...

...but don't let the government do it. Let people build it because they want it.


Crozet Village Center...


...creates a new pedestrian friendly town center from an old strip mall.

Nanny State

Britain's Lesson for Us

Theodore Dalrymple Has This [click to read] about a neighborly agreement that was mutually beneficial, harmed no one, and because of increased government is now illegal!

"Leanne Shepherd and Lucy Jarrett, both 32, are close friends. They work as police officers, but on different shifts. For a long time, they babysat for each other, an arrangement that suited them perfectly and enabled them to continue their careers. The authorities recently told them, however, that their arrangement was illegal. If they did not desist, they would face prosecution."

We've already got government nannying farming. Just ask Joel Salatan, pioneer agriculturalist, who wrote: Everything I want to Do is Illegal [click to read]. I think you get his drift.

When I was a kid I could make good money in the Summer once several farmers learned I was willing to stack hay. I don't think "minimum wage" was ever mentioned. When you got pretty good at it you'd make eighty cents an hour. The farm economy depended on a lot of family labor that was never compensated and some hired labor like us kids. That's probably illegal now too. I don't remember ever being asked my age. If you could work you got asked back for the next cutting. Eventually you'd pick up more work painting stuff and cutting out brush or mowing.

Go back and read the Laura Ingalls Wilder books again. Probably most of what they did couldn't be done in our time.

Michelle Malkin Writes [click to read] about SEIU's latest move to "expand" its "services." and follows up Here [click to read].

Slightly Related is This 'Nanny State' Post About Hamburgers [click to read]. The Nanny State is alive and well. They're after my Big Mac..