Young, Foolish, and Felonious

My goodness. Moogie seems to have been the Negative Nellie the past few posts.

I don't see that changing today.

It's just that there is sooooo much stupidity out there. And so much of the stupid originates in the criminal justice system.

It seems that Arkansas has a relatively new law making it a felony to "exchange sexually explicit material involving anyone under the age of 17" or to distribute, possess or view "matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child." Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I don't have a problem with the law, per se. It's a perfectly acceptable function of government to protect children from  those who would exploit them, for whatever reason.  But, when government uses laws like this to punish children, it overreaches that function and sets young people on a dangerous path that can affect them for the rest of their lives.

Yep, the Jacksonville Police busted three young teenagers who had been "sexting" with one another and charged them with felonies. The sexted videos had been messaged to other kids, too. The kids are a 14 year-old boy and two girls, ages 13 and 14. In other words, they are young enough to be daredevils, ignorant of the law, and foolish.

I have a problem with enforcing laws upon a class of people the laws were designed to protect -- in this case, children under 17 years of age. At least the kids were charged in Juvenile Court instead of County Criminal Court. Hopefully the Juvy Judge will find a way to make this felony expungeable so these kids aren't stamped with a Scarlet "Felon" from the get-go and for the rest of their lives. Their reputations are already trashed. Even if the offense was committed by their own doing, they need to be made aware of the ramifications of the transgression without bearing the full clout of a felony.

The Legislature needs to work on this statute a bit -- give it some much-needed tweaking. But, oh nooooooo. They're too busy debating critical matters like the constitutionality of requiring Voter ID and whether we should have more biking paths.

Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just Call Him Mayor Mary Poppins

But, he probably wouldn't prescribe more than a half-teaspoon of sugar substitute to help the medicine go down.



I have never been so glad not to be a resident of the Big Apple.  I suppose after his off-the-wall insistence that no soft drinks larger than 16 oz be sold in NYC, the next target for Mayor Bloomberg will be bun-length hot dogs.  You know -- if you eat hot dogs that are regular length instead of super-sized bun-length hot dogs, you won't ingest as much salt and fat, so we're from the government and we're here to make help you moderate your salt and fat consumption!

I always held my cigarettes up to the place where I'd cracked the window, even when there was no one else in the car, because I remembered being trapped in the smoke-filled backseat while both parents puffed away. I've been a non-smoker since 1987, and these days I don't particularly care for sucking up someone else's smoke, but I think banning smoking outdoors in parks or beaches is just way too heavy-handed.  It's now a primary violation (meaning the driver can be pulled over simply for smoking, even if he's in compliance with all other traffic laws) in Arkansas for adults to smoke in their own cars if they're transporting a passenger under the age of 14.  A primary violation!!!  Hell, failing to wear seatbelts isn't even a primary violation!  And I'm happy about that.

We're reaching a tipping point.  I just hope we stand up to some of these Big Brotherisms before we find ourselves bent over, kissing our individual liberties goodbye.

Like Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller, I kinda go along with the first New Yorker interviewed below about the new NYC sugary drink regulation:



Sheesh.

Feed the Children?

First authorized in 2010 by President Barack Obama, financed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and administered by the Louisiana Department of Education, a new program has been initiated in New Orleans that provides evening meals to local school children from low-income families. The balanced meals are prepared by Second Harvest and served at seven sites, including three after-school programs, in "at risk" areas at a cost of $2.72 per meal.  A recent article in the Times-Picayune describes the program which hopes to serve 1,200 children by the end of the school year.

The article also recounts a few troubling things, some of which concern me a little bit, too.

Don't get me wrong -- I have no problem contributing to the nutrition of children and families in need.  The private sector does a pretty good job of addressing the problem -- Second Harvest is among that number, and we have regularly contributed to help it stay afloat.  We did the same for Potluck while living in Little Rock.  Public schools have done fairly well with breakfast and lunch programs, too, with glaring exceptions such as the recent North Carolina Nazi Food Police, and the ketchup-as-vegetable debacle, among other things. And, I understand and recognize that there is genuine hunger out there, even in these United States.  But . . . .

But.  One of the children featured in the article, 9 year-old Lawrence, is said to have a full belly at 6:00 when his mother picks him up now from his after-school program instead of a growling one.  An active 9 year-old boy could be hungry at 6:00 in the evening?  Well, duh!

Did Lawrence's family not have enough money to buy food and prepare it at home?  The article suggests that the family was perfectly capable of feeding itself:

Sometimes his dad would be cooking a pot of something at home.  If his father was working late at Lowe's, they might grab fast food.

But, now there's no nightly rush to feed Lawrence.  Between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m., he and the 50 other children at the North Rampart Community Center sit down and eat a healthy meal, complete with fresh fruit.

There's no need to tend to one's child's needs.  The government will see to that.  And, the government will determine what, where, and when the children will eat.

And, what about the impact of this program on families?  Even a principal at one of the schools was concerned about detracting from family time around the dinner table engendered by the program.  She abandoned that concern, however, when she realized that few families at her school actually shared evening meals at home together, "recounting overheard conversations between students and parents, debating whether to stop at McDonald's or Burger King on the way home."

What?!? They couldn't sit down together at a fast food joint and have a family meal?  Or take the fast food home and share it along with conversation about their day?  Fast food every day isn't the best way to eat, but it's certainly a way when time is short.

So, it appears that the overarching concern here is not actual, debilitating hunger, or the significance of the nuclear family -- it  appears to be all about what goes into the family's mouth.  And government needs to make that decision.  And the taxpayer needs to foot the bill.

Not only does the government have an aching need to tell us what to eat, this program also models to children that they can rely on the government to tend to their "needs," wherever.  That same concerned principal who was won over to the feeding program noticed that at least one-third of the students take the meals home.  There is speculation that maybe the meal is taken home to eat with the family, or to give to Grandma, or for Dad's lunch at work the next day. 

Huh?!?

The meals are intended for children, to help them be better prepared to learn by not suffering from the effects of poor nutrition.  And those children see those meals going to adults elsewhere?  What does this teach them?  How are they being conditioned to rely on the government as they age?

What does it teach them about following rules?  Or about gaming the system.

Another well-intentioned Progressive plan gone awry.

I'm beyond angry -- I'm afraid. I'm just afraid.