Pennsylvania Nannies Ban Swaddling in Day Care

Pennsylvania has effectively banned swaddling babies in day care because it could possibly be dangerous

Why shouldn't your baby look like a burrito?Georges de la TourI had my fourth child recently and, like his older sisters, have been swaddling him for every nap and at bedtime. Also like his sisters, the baby is going to a wonderful local day care. I was shocked when the day care administrator politely informed me that our son could not be swaddled for naps. In the three years since my third child began day care, Pennsylvania, along with several other states, has changed day care regulations to include a ban on swaddling.

The basis for the ban stems from “Caring for our Children: National Health and Safety Performance Standards Guidelines for Early Care and Education Programs,” a guidebook produced by the HHS-funded National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education (NRC) in conjunction with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association. “In child care settings," the manual states, “swaddling is not necessary or recommended.”

Until 2011 there were no rules about swaddling in day care. “Swaddling wasn’t part of Caring for Our Children before [the 2011 edition],” an employee at the NRC helpfully explained during a phone interview. “The optimal age for children to be in group care settings is three months and [so we looked at whether babies should] still be swaddled after three months.” 

According to the NRC’s conclusions, swaddling isn’t necessary. The official line is that they are “worried about monitoring children in a group care environment. Swaddling can be done differently by different providers, i.e., incorrectly and blankets [can end up] covering faces. We’re looking at group care environment for blankets becoming loosened.” The unelected busybodies who write these rules are convinced that swaddling isn’t safe because the day care workers may incorrectly wrap the baby, the blanket could come loose, the baby might roll over into the loose material, and then the baby could possibly die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). 

There are no known cases of a baby dying at day care from suffocation by a swaddling blanket. In fact, there has been a 50 percent decrease in SIDS since 1994. Additionally, as Melinda Wenner Moyer reported in Slate, a New Zealand study that tried to determine any bedding-related factors that contribute to SIDS, concluded that tight swaddling significantly decreases the risk of death.

According to Pennsylvania state rules, a baby may not be swaddled in the day care without written authorization from a physician. The regulation states that “Infants shall be placed in the sleeping position recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (i.e., on their backs) unless there is a medical reason an infant should not sleep in this position. The medical reason shall be documented in a statement signed by a physician, physician’s assistant or CRNP and placed in the child’s record at the facility.” 

Although swaddling a baby helps them to sleep on their backs (they naturally want to sleep on their tummies), there is no “medical reason” for swaddling. It isn’t the same as a child needing prescription antibiotics for an ear infection. When I tried to get my pediatrician to write the waiver, I got a definite no, along with the official line from the AAP, which states that swaddling isn’t recommended after two-months of age. No swaddling without a waiver and no way to get a waiver, so essentially there is a ban. Similar bans are already in effect in Minnesota and California. 

Dr. Harvey Karp, who wrote Happiest Baby on the Block and Happiest Baby Guide to Great Sleep, the bibles of swaddling and sleep, is furious about the ban. He argues that between two and four months of age is the “absolute worst” time to stop swaddling because it is the time that SIDS is most likely to occur. “Evidence shows that swaddling may well reduce infant sleep deaths. By reducing crying and boosting sleep, swaddling lessens a parent’s temptation to bring the baby into bed with them or to put the baby to sleep on the stomach,” Karp argues

“Young babies that were sleeping an hour [or] an hour and a half are now sleeping 20 minutes,” a day care worker in Texas, where swaddling has effectively been banned, told the Huffington Post. “I have some babies who are not sleeping at all.” Speaking for others at her facility, the employee complained that [teachers] feel "they are not able to meet the needs of the infants they are caring for … They are not allowed to do what they feel is needed.”

As a parent, I feel the same way. Why should the decision to wrap or not wrap my baby be made by an unaccountable stranger? It would make more sense and be more efficient if the day care workers and me had a conversation and decided how best to care for him. Also remember that, as the NRC admits, they are making policy based on what might happen. They are not basing their recommendations on reported cases of babies who were swaddled and died from SIDS while in day care. 

The NRC even claims that it is not anti-swaddling. When I asked an NRC representative why they had enacted the regulations, the answer was positively Orwellian. NRC standards, she explained, are based on the recommendations of Dr. Rachel Moon at the American Academy of Pediatrics. Dr. Moon isn’t anti-swaddling, she’s just against any blankets in cribs in day care. But you have to have a blanket to swaddle the baby, I sputtered. “We aren’t anti-swaddling,” the woman replied. “We’re just against blankets in cribs.” So there you have it, no blankets in cribs and another unreasonable, unnecessary standard becomes law. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    “We aren’t anti-swaddling,” the woman replied. “We’re just against blankets in cribs.” So there you have it, no blankets in cribs and another unreasonable, unnecessary standard becomes law.

    Subtext: FYTW

  • sarcasmic||

    PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE SMASH!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You know who else was swaddled?

  • ||

    No, but I bet EvH can tell us.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Swaddle *this,* jesse!

  • ||

    That's sexual harassment and jesse doesn't have to take it.

  • ||

    But if you work out he might be willing to.

  • ||

    Hey now, nobody likes being called shallow.

  • ||

    I went on a first date tonight that did not inspire a desire for a second. Her greatest sin was putting photos a few years old on her dating profile, so I'm feeling the truth of this.

  • ||

    Was it just that she misrepresented herself laterally? Or had she gone downhill since then?

  • ||

    She'd gone downhill some. Worse skin, gained some weight. I don't like the way I look right now, but my pics are all recent so no one is getting surprised.

    She's 26, and I had guessed that some of the pics had to be from when she was quite a bit younger and something about her facial structure made me worry she was going to look worse when she got older.

    It's just as well, there are significant but not deal breaking personal incompatibilities that i would have overlooked if she'd been hotter, and it would have probably been a mistake to do so.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Jean-Baptiste Charbonneau?

  • ||

    Superman?

  • Rich||

    I know.

    Here's a hint: He died a horrible death.

  • ||

    Trayvon Martin?

    *sets torch down near thatch comments section and backs away slowly*

  • Dave Krueger||

    Yep. I think there is actually some scientific evidence that swaddling is linked to crucifixion.

    Everything is "linked" to something these days. Mostly to Al Qaeda.

  • Rich||

    You're both wrong. It's THE MUMMY!

  • Almanian!||

    your mom?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Sevo?

  • Adam330||

    Have these people ever taken care of a baby? Babies constantly wake themselves up with jerky movements. My son wouldn't have slept more than 5 minutes at a time if we didn't swaddle him.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    We swaddled all four of ours, and all four had blankets from day one at home.
    A cat took up guarding each, yet managed not to "breathe away their breath."
    Only one ever wore a helmet riding a bicycle, and only because "it's pretty!"
    Each knew how to check, fire, reload, clear and clean rifles, shotguns, revolvers and pistols before teenage.
    They are all alive and in good health.

  • -Umbriel-||

    So swaddling, if done improperly, might be hazardous. Unlike, say, leaving your home...

  • Ted S.||

    I see a business opportunity seeling baby straitjackets!

  • Ted S.||

    Or even selling them!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They already do!

    But make no mistake. These things are awesome.

  • Ted S.||

    If they're going to ban day-care workers from swaddling, they'll have to ban parents from swaddling, too.

    Beter to just round up all the children and concentrate them in camps where only government-approved adults can look after them. If it saves the life of even one child, don't we have an obligation to try?

  • Ted S.||

    "Better", not "beter".

    I need more coffee.

  • Johnimo||

    Not to worry, Ted, because they're already IN concentration camps: public schools. However, the very worst concentration camps are the ones in which we put ourselves.

  • ||

    Ms. Choksondik: Now Kyle, I need you to be quiet. In my class, you need to be able to concentrate. Concentration is the key to succeed in my class.

    Cartman: Maybe we should send him to a concentration camp. Oh! Dammit, dammit, dammit!

    Kyle 2: Cartman!

  • GILMORE||

    "Better to just round up all the children and concentrate them in camps where only government-approved adults can look after them""

    ..Which is why BF Skinner's Walden II is the "practical-progressive's child-rearing guide", and not a ridiculous psychobabble-rationalized socialist fantasy of perfecting society through scientific-control and indoctrination of the individual. Nay - destruction of the individual...

    "Skinner stood at the opposite position from humanistic psychology for his whole career, and denied humans possessing freedom and dignity as well as evidenced in his novel Beyond Freedom and Dignity.[28] Most of his theories were supposed to be based on self-observation, which caused him to become a supporter for behaviorism. Much of this self-observed theory stemmed from Thorndike’s Puzzle Box, a direct antecedent to Skinner’s Box. The psychologist further expanded on Thorndike’s earlier work by introducing the concept of Reinforcement to Thorndike’s Law of Effect.[29] Skinner was an advocate of behavioral engineering and he thought that people should be controlled through the systematic allocation of external rewards.[30"

    Worth looking into if you want to understand the intellectual underpinnings of your modern nanny-pants liberal (who has probably never read this shit anyway)...

    Anyway, the Pennsylvania Nannies are probably waiting for the perfected version of Skinner's "Air Crib" =

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner#Air_crib

  • David Wall||

    Guessing you are getting pretty deep into Randian literature. She railed against Skinner, especially when he published Beyond Freedom & Dignity.

    BTW quote above is inaccurate in placing humanist & behaviorist as opposites. Objectivists see them are flip side of the same coin--Skinnerians vehemently deny the existence of the cognitive mind & emotion worshiping humanist wimpily ignore cognition. Comes out to the same deal. They think men are mindless brutes to borrow from Miss Rand.

  • GILMORE||

    Guessing you are getting pretty deep into Randian literature

    not at all, actually.

    i went to an experimental high school based on ideas mainly from jean piaget, but had some skinner influences. i read 'walden 2' when i was 17. thats when i started suspecting it was horseshit. ive never read any rand other than 'anthem'; started 'atlas' but thought it was tiresome.

    as for 'inaccuracies', tell it to wikipedia motherfucker. my cut & paste is not to be questioned

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Another example of anti-behaviorists never actually bringing up facts to show behaviorism was wrong, they just offer emotional appeals about how horrible it would be if it were right.

  • GILMORE||

    what emotional appeal?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That was in response to Mr. Wall's statement that behaviorists think men are mindless brutes.

  • GILMORE||

    oh.

    I don't give a shit about the Behaviorism debate really, I just know that having gone to an actual school where they try and 'scientifically' create progressive-liberal-citizens-for-a-just-society out of impressionable children?

    I AM THEIR WEAPON X GONE HORRIBLY WRONG

    Seriously though. I was at a reunion the other year, and gave a little speech thanking them... "If as a teenager I had not read noam Chomsky, howard zinn, and participated in a variety of communal living experiments... I would never have understood what was so fundamentally wrong about these ideas, and lacked the tangible proof of it as well...."

    Something like that. They never envisioned their little proggie boot-camp would produce their worst nightmare.

  • Johnimo||

    So, you're saying you had a montessori learning experience in collectivism?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Skinner was an advocate of behavioral engineering and he thought that people should be controlled through the systematic allocation of external rewards.

    That's only half the truth. Skinner argued that mass behaviorist training was inevitable, and that if the good people refused to use it, bad people would. Looks like the latter has happened in the intervening decades.

  • GILMORE||

    ""t if the good people refused to use it, bad people would""

    forgive me for despising the 'good people' the same as the rest. actually, i hate them more... nothing is more fucking offensive than a moral narcissist abusing children "for the greater good"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Not sure who you're claiming is/was abusing children, or if this is just another H+R melodrama moment.

  • GILMORE||

    I consider the behaviorist ideas as expressed in Walden II, and put into action by certain public educators over the years, to constitute 'child abuse', at least in the sense of using kids to test out their utopian ideas of social engineering.

    The fact they generally fail at it is inconsequential. One could argue I actually benefited, but I think that's immaterial.

  • Ted S.||

    Is funny alt-text also banned in Pennsylvania?

  • ||

    Stepping on AD's shtick today?

  • Rich||

    Although swaddling a baby helps them to sleep on their backs (they naturally want to sleep on their tummies), there is no “medical reason” for swaddling.

    Ah, HA! In other words, it's just like CIRCUMCISION!

  • Dave Krueger||

    The reason they prefer to sleep on their tummies is probably to protect their junk from sadistic knife-wielding grownups.

  • Rich||

    Probably. That's why *I* prefer to sleep on my tummy.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    My father tried to get them to circumcise me with pinking shears so I'd have a built-in french tickler.
    He wanted to give me all the advantages he could!

  • Ted S.||

    I figured they were being groomed for anal sex by Teh Ghey Lobby.

  • ||

    You know, you won't get invited back to the meetings if you keep blabbing the contents of the meetings to EVERYONE.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah like everyone doesn't already know the content of those meetings anyway.

    1. Opening ceremonies (incl screening of wrestling movie).

    2. Status of plan to turn whole world gay.

    3. New Business.

    4. Anal sex and refreshments.

  • Aloysious||

    Anal sex *and* refreshments?!?

    I will never look at refreshments the same way ever again.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Wrestling? I thought it was a gladiator movie.

  • ||

    No, you're absolutely right Jimbo...It's just a film about gladiators.

  • Agammamon||

    I like how the fat blonde one is shoving the olive oil down his pants in preparation.

  • ||

    There's good reason for that. Hands down the pants seems to be a completely valid move.

    My parents completely missed the mark when trying to get me into sports in my HS years.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    My parents completely missed the mark when trying to get me into sports in my HS years.

    There is something utterly refreshing about gay men who don't base their entire worldview on their sexuality, and know how to make a fucking joke.

    I applaud you, jessie. Bravo.

  • ||

    There's good reason for that. Hands down the pants seems to be a completely valid move.

    That still doesn't make sense. Wouldn't you want to make it harder for your opponents to do that, not easier? Or is it supposed to keep them from getting a grip or something?

  • ||

    It seems to be the latter. At some point everyone seems to end up with a hand down the pants, you don't want them getting a decent grip on anything while they're down there.

  • Dave Krueger||

    According to Abby Schacter, the ban is unnecessary, unreasonable, and puts a burden on both parents and day care workers.

    Hahaha! Rules like that don't need to be necessary or reasonable, silly! Rules are meant to make rule makers feel good about themselves and bolster their own self importance. Furthermore, if parents and daycare workers had any compassion for other people (rule makers for example) they wouldn't complain. This is true for all members of the ruling class, from lowly local bureaucrats all the way up to the President.

    Also, consider this little factoid: If you whiners weren't always bitching, it probably wouldn't be necessary for the rulers to watch everything you say and do. That's right! It's your anti-government sentiments that make it necessary for the government to waste valuable resources on domestic surveillance when they could be doing other more important tasks like bringing peace to a few more middle eastern countries and fixing everything that capitalism destroys.

  • Rich||

    You weren't swaddled, were you, Dave?

  • ||

    What are you talking about? His mother swaddles him every night and after lunch for nap time.

  • Agammamon||

    That's dangerously close to the sentiment expressed by the BP agents who arrested me last week.

    I made their job harder by not complying, America was less safe because the time they spent dealing with me meant that a 'bad guy' could have gotten through their crack team of security professionals.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Forgive me, but it sounds like making their job harder was precisely your intention.

  • Agammamon||

    Yes it was - but not because I seriously thought that they were actually *preventing* 'bad guys' from getting into the country.

  • Dave Krueger||

    Think about it. They are constantly discovering people in Egypt who were swaddled and are now dead. They call them mummies. That kid in the picture looks like one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Question I came across on Halloween: Why are mummies not just called zombies? There is no difference it seems.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, it should be the other way around. The concept of the mummy outdates that of the zombie (nzumbe) by 2000 years at least. Secondly, a mummy is prepared in a different way than a zombie, if done correctly, a mummy will not decompose, like a zombie does.

  • Almanian!||

    So a mummy would be even TOUGHER. Good to know...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Kill them with fire.

  • ||

    Yeah, I usually slow cook mummy in an egyptian ale for at least 8 hours. Zombie you just sear until the pustules start popping and you're good.

  • SweatingGin||

    Mummies have like 8 hit dice, and they cause terrible diseases when they hit. Have make a saving throw versus getting infected with mummy rot.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeah, zombies are just 1 HD lamewads. Mummies are up there with Specters.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Eduard, what is the pro-life position on zombies and mummies? Is it like Herschel's on Walking Dead before the massacre at the barn?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Do you have any horror stories about SoCons (preferably people no-one has heard of before) expressing controversial opinions on zombies?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am curious about the pro-life stance on them, zombies seem more lively and sapient than persons in vegetative states or early embryos. They have human DNA...

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If they leave humans' brains alone, humans should leave *their* brains alone.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My brain, my choice!

  • ||

    Do you have any horror stories about SoCons (preferably people no-one has heard of before) expressing controversial opinions on zombies?

    Does Justice Sandra Day O'Conner count?

    Charisma Magazine*: Is Judgment Far Off? Gay Wedding Ceremonies Taking Place at US Supreme Court

    Is this a prophetic sign of the state of our nation? Does it bother you that gay weddings are taking place at our nation's High Court?

    *I honestly don't know how influential Charisma currently is, when I was a youth my parents got their newsletter and we got their youth newsletters.

  • Irish||

    Is this a prophetic sign of the state of our nation? Does it bother you that gay weddings are taking place at our nation's High Court?

    For some reason, I don't recall the first sign of the apocalypse being gay marriage. I must have slept through that part of Sunday School.

  • ||

    It's probably one of the Ezekiel or Daniel prophecies. Sunday school always focuses too hard on Revelations.

    “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

    Clearly this is talking about how gay marriage is rending the very fabric of American society.

  • Irish||

    Little known fact: That 'beast' part is clearly just a mistranslation of 'bear.' It makes a lot of sense if you just replace that.

    After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beastbear—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beastsbears, and it had ten horns.

    This is clearly just a story about a jacked up, ten-penised gay man with grills and an S&M fetish who broke into this poor saps bedroom late at night.

  • ||

    I'm not sure that makes sense because the third beast looked like a bear. See, the bears softened up America to allow for gay marriage and then gay marriage is the fourth beast.

    I think it's generally claimed that each of the four beasts represents an empire that controlled Palestine.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The Whore of Babylon is a lesbian, duh!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    jesse,

    You obviously had an interesting childhood.

    I looked up "Revelation evil" to see if the Book of Revelation had any insight, but I just got links to the game Resient Evil: Revelations.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    "I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come and see!" I looked, and there before me was a purple horse! Its rider held a rainbow, and he was given an earring, and he rode out as a conqueror looking fabulous."

  • ||

    You obviously had an interesting childhood.

    What makes you say that?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Your anecdotes.

  • ||

    I suppose. I think my childhood was a little quirky, but I generally assume everyone had a quirky childhood, maybe just in different ways.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    When I first read your question about the influence of charisma (and coupled with the D&D comments above involving the relative merits of mummies v. zombies), I was wondering if I had missed something important in my formative nerdy D&D years.

    Was there some way to talk your way past a mummy? Man, I feel so stupid for spending the time and effort to just whump them on the head.

    Then I saw that Charisma was some magazine. Now I don't feel so stupid for spending years and years playing D&D and mercilessly slaughtering the undead.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So perhaps zombies should be called unprepared zombies, or unwanted mummies.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Unviable corpses?

    What about late term burials when it comes to zombies? And what is the equivalent of a trimester when it comes to a zombie?

  • ||

    IIRC, mummies came first and as monsters were an expression of popular interest in Egyptology. Zombies became popular as an expression of discontent with consumer culture.

    Zombies are mindless consumers who self-replicate while mummies are cursed individuals jealous of our status as living. I don't believe mummies traditionally create new mummies in any way.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -I don't believe mummies traditionally create new mummies in any way.

    Well, who knows? They can not bite with their mouths wound shut.

  • ||

    Too much effort. You could theoretically have a mummy who was a cursed Egyptian priest make another mummy, but it's really time consuming and you'd have to wait for the corpse to become desiccated.

  • OneOut||

    Mummies have a lot of time on their hands.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    IIRC, mummies came first and as monsters were an expression of popular interest in Egyptology.

    Even before Egyptology was a thing, in Medieval Europe, mummy dust (ground-up mummy) was used as an ingredient for magic potions and charms.

  • ||

    Right, but they weren't traditionally represented as ambulatory monsters until Egyptology became a thing.

    We caught the Mummies of the World exhibit when I was visiting SLC. It was pretty interesting stuff and they covered Andean mummies and some created in northern and central Europe by very peculiar crypt conditions. It was pretty neat.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This also leads to the question, was Frankenstein's monster a type of zombie?

  • SweatingGin||

    Nah, 'cause he still had a thinking, working brain, even if it was abby normal.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Keep up - he was a flesh golem.

    Don't you know *anything?*

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    A golem? I thought that guy fell into the volcano in Mordor ;)

  • Pathogen||

    ".. he was a flesh golem."

    A tool of the Zionist conspiracy™...

  • ||

    JOOOOOS!

  • ||

    Speaking of, Mary Shelley's handwritten notebooks from whence Frankenstein came are available to peruse online as of this week.

  • Irish||

    That's pretty cool. It's a bit disappointing that nothing else she wrote was of the same quality because Frankenstein still reads pretty well today.

    There aren't many horror stories that age well. I tried to read Dracula and it is unbelievably tedious. Mid-1800s Gothic novels also come off as totally ludicrous, with the exception of the stuff written by Poe...which is actually still ludicrous but in an entertaining way.

  • wadair||

    Did you know you can change one letter and go from swaddled to swaddler.

  • DaveSs||

    Just had my first 9 months ago.

    Up until about 3-4 months age she would not sleep without being swaddled. Not being swaddled apparently scares the crap out of a newborn.

    And that whole 'back is best' thing. Really have to laugh at that one. Ever since she has been able to roll over on her own, say about 5 months or so, when we put her down to sleep, 9 out of 10 times she immediately rolls over on her tummy. The only way I could stop it is if I restrain her, say with a swaddle.

  • Rich||

    Did you try imposing a penaltax?

  • AlmightyJB||

    All he needed was a "Tummy free zone" sign.

  • Christophe||

    I think the point is that once they're strong enough to flip over on their own, you're good.
    What you don't want to do is put a newborn tummy down, when they're not strong enough to move their head if they start suffocating.

  • DaveSs||

    Apparently they still make the warning till about 12 months age.

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah - after three kids (all of whom have now made it to adulthood), my answer to this is, "Go fuck yourselves." Every one of our kids slept best when wrapped up tight and warm. They loved it.

    When they got a little older (over 9 months or so IIRC) it wasn't necessary - so we didn't do it.

    Jesus fucking Antichrist, the slavers know absolutely no limits.

  • Rich||

    Yep. Wherever human imagination goes, they follow.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Hey, an actual 'for the children' article!

    Anyway, we couldn't swaddle my daughter she was so restless that we'd go check in on her minutes later and she was unwrapped.

    Now. Onto the irrational nanny-staters. As you guys know by now, I own a daycare and believe me I've seen how idiotic bureaucrats are. As long at they believe what they're doing is the "right thing" that's all that matters. My daycare is run by a couple of Evangelical girls and a couple of mothers including my sister who has three of her own - one being ADHD. She knows where it's at and I'll take her advice any day over a fricken bureaucrat who has A) nothing invested in my daycare and B) doesn't even know my kids. Not every child is the same and some parents want certain things to be done a certain way. We oblige where we can as it's a private service. But it's very hard to do that with the Ministry constantly polluting child care with silly one size fits all logic and laws.

    Everytime we go over the "codes" of the government we roll our eyes and to be honest we ignore a lot of their stupidity because it's not even practical or rational. If we followed it to the 'T' we would not be able to run the center.

    (cont. below)

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Go on...

  • ||

    a private service. [...] If we followed [govt. regulations] to the 'T' we would not be able to run the center.

    Maybe that's what their goal is.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    It's no secret Quebec is anti-private. It gets worse when the pseudo-communist putzes in the Parti Quebecois come into power as the anti-business rhetoric irrationally increases exponentially.

  • Christophe||

    You actually run a business in Quebec? Jesus you're brave.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Braver than any cop, eh?!

  • Rich||

    The glitch-ridden website used to sign up for insurance under President Barack Obama's healthcare law will be down for "extended maintenance" overnight on Saturday

    Suck on *that*, teabaggers! By cleverly shutting down *tonight* the maintainers get an extra hour in *for free*!

  • SweatingGin||

    I caught a brief blurb about that on the radio this afternoon (AP News? I think?)

    "But people can still sign up by calling the toll-free number"

    IIRC, the people on the other end of that number use the same website to put the data in.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    But we have to be careful because an inspector can come in any time and cite us. The citation gets posted on a government website.

    They actually believe this is promoting "quality care." I think it's neutral at best.

    When I first open I was visited by an inspector. I had been open a few months but already she found the place to be very clean - more so than subsidized ones. However, she had to find something to bust balls over to justify her 65k a year salary and she did with two minor issues. One, we had to have a General Assembly inside 90 days being open but seeing I only had 13 kids at the time we had no parents interested enough to be a part of one....so citation. The other was her nit-picking of our home-made, diverse menu.

    But I won't waste time with the Kafkaesque and unproductive conversation that followed leading us to waste time calling Health Canada who were equally confusing.

    Finally, she was obsessed with making sure all cleaning products were under lock and key. When I asked what empirically based study showed we were raising a generation of retarded kids drinking Mr. Clean she only looked at me with those empty civil servant eyes and said, 'there was none. They were just worried it would happen.

    Like I said. It's not us that lives in a "fantasy world' like Mother Tony asserts. It's them. The government and their progressive busy bodies.

  • Rich||

    I asked what empirically based study showed we were raising a generation of retarded kids drinking Mr. Clean

    I'm somewhat surprised you weren't cited for "attitude", or worse.

    Seriously question: Did she take air/water/paint/etc. samples?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Rich, no but apparently they do now. Paint chips for example can be a "hazard" to children safety.

    At some point they may as well just take me over.

  • Jordan||

    Swaddling? Is that like a new form of twerking or something?

  • ||

    Only when Nicole does it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    No twerking is encouraged in day care

  • ||

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Part Cyberman, part ninja, part Jason from Friday 13 - I hope Beijing is paying attention!

  • ||

    Are these military or police?

  • ||

    The BoingBoing article refers to them as "hypermilitarized coppers" so I assumed they're SWAT-equivalent, but there wasn't anything explicit about who they report to.

  • Christophe||

    Given the riot shields in some pictures, I think they're police. :(

  • ||

    According to this they are soldiers and they were at a parade. Hopefully that is correct.

  • Rhywun||

    Are these military or police?

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • Bam!||

    Kinky.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Looks more like they shop at the Red Shirt Brigade Boutique from the 2013 Faceless Mook Collection.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Before I leave for dinner just want to tell this story quickly. My permit is for 60 kids. So when the inspector came before I opened they noted I had 33 in the daycare. I opened with 2 kids and slowly grew to 50. With each new kid we went out and bought mats on an 'as you need' basis. It would be silly to spend on something you don't need. In the meantime, they came back to make sure I had 60 mats - which I didn't because at the time they came I had 50 kids - 5 babies who slept in cribs. So I was okay with 50 mats. But we had to find 10 mats. So rather than go spend money all I did was borrow 10 from my wife's school for the inspection and returned them the next day. My hippie sister asked the inspector why they wanted to count 60 since we buy the mats (as if we'd let kids sleep on a cold, hard floor) as we need them. This is what they said "your permit is for 60 so it's only logical you have 60 mats."

    My sister responded "no, what's logical is if you have 35 kids you buy 35 mats. We're not made of money."

    They're so fucking clueless it's scary.

  • Jordan||

    Hey, you're a business owning fatcat, so buying useless shit shouldn't be a big deal!

  • AlmightyJB||

    "They're so fucking clueless it's scary."

    That's why they were hired for that job.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    we couldn't swaddle my daughter she was so restless that we'd go check in on her minutes later and she was unwrapped.

    Try velcro; or a ratchet strap.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    They were just worried it would happen.

    I'm worried Michelle Pfeiffer will break into my house and crawl in bed with me some night. It hasn't happened yet.

    But I worry about it.

  • ||

    Is she a zombie or a mummy at this point?

  • Seamus||

    I had my fourth child recently and, like his older sisters, have been swaddling him for every nap and at bedtime. Also like his sisters, the baby is going to a wonderful local day care.

    His older sisters have been swaddling him at naps and bedtime? That really must be a wonderful local day care they go to, if it trains them to swaddle their baby brother like that.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    You say this like it's a bad thing: Harper has made us into a right-wing petro state

  • Irish||

    At the same time Canada's Hyde-like government has muzzled climate change scientists and trashed most of the country’s environmental legislation. In short, Stephen Harper has used Canada’s oil revenues to incrementally construct a right-wing petro state with a penchant for defense spending, electoral fraud, science bashing, Senate corruption and prison building.

    Leftists don't really like facts, do they?

    Canadian Defense spending as a percentage of GDP:

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
    1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2

    There's been no change in the last 5 years. They spend half a percent less on defense than fucking Australia. I hardly think the Canadian defense budget is spiraling out of control.

    Prison spending actually has skyrocketed under Harper, but I wonder how much of that is actually his fault. The Post discusses Harper's 'tough on crime' approach, but doesn't mention specifics.

    What has Harper's government actually done that resulted in an increase in prison costs? It's possible that it is their fault, I'd just like to know what the causation is.

  • Pathogen||

    Well, after Harpers violent right-wing putsch, the wholesale round up and imprisonment of political, environmental, and intellectually/ideologically superior dissidents was inevitable, and led to out-of-control spending on prisons and torture. The skyrocketing cost of the execution parties and associated einsatzgruppen has driven defense spending up to, like... 220% of GDP. Forcing starving native American Canadian orphans off of their ancestral lands to exploit those resources has failed to fully fund his machinations, nor quench his insatiable bloodthirsty greed... Expect it to get much worse before progressive sanity prevails.

  • ||

    James Cameron is making an 8 part documentary on global warming! I know you're all STOKED.

    Trailer

    The Avatar-director has teamed up with producer Jerry Weintraub and a cadre of celebrity correspondents to create Years of Living Dangerously – an eight-part documentary series on the human impact of global warming, to air on Showtime in 2014.
  • DK||

    James Cameron should direct a new Terminator:

    Old Target: Sarah Connor
    New Target: James Cameron

  • Almanian!||

    +Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Can anyone read that without an Austrian accent?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Put another shrimp on the barbie!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Hey, just what you see, pal!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Considering his meticulous attention to historical accuracy in Titanic, I'm sure this series will be just as scrupulous with the facts.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I remember dicaprio's line, "this is bad." He truly isas wise as he is handsome!

  • C. Anacreon||

    I'm sure this Cameron series will be packed with accusations that people just are denying the "science." But here's Cameron introducing the series saying that 99% of scientists agree on global warming. Excuse me, James, but can you cite your "science" on that? Up till now everyone tries to claim 97% -- but even that was based on a really crappy "opinion poll" of -- wait for it -- 79 people (and even those were colleagues of the authors of the study).

    So I'm supposed to be the one who can't handle science, and Cameron is the 'scientist' who overstates a VERY suspect "study"? Why don't you tell us about the hockey stick too, you Nobel laureate you. Oh, wait, that was an Oscar, right? Same thing, I'm sure.

  • OneOut||

    They are awfully confident that we'll still be around in 2014.

    Can't they wrap it up by 2013 ?

  • Almanian!||

    Is it OK that I still think Shannen Doherty is hot. I mean, like, STEAMIN' hot? I just adore her.

    I'm afraid she might sneak into Fist's house at night, thinking she's crawling into bed with me.

    wait - wut?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    What is she starring in?

  • Almanian!||

    Presently, she is starring in my mind. And recently was in a repeat of the horrid (except for her being in it) "Growing the Big One".

  • AlmightyJB||

    I saw some chick at the bar the other night that looked just like a young, hot Shannen Doherty. She was with some dude unfortunately.

  • ||

    The problem with Shannon Doherty is when someone cruelly points out that her eyes are not level with one another, and then you can never un-see it. She goes from hot chick to freak in the blink of an (un-balanced) eye. Also, I still remember her in the episode of 90210 where Brandon's girlfriend goes psycho on him and burns their parade float, and Shannon says "but she smokes weed, Brandon! Weed!" I was stoned when I watched it, too. It was great.

  • ||

    Huh, the eye thing is true. But it isn't noticeable when she has her head titled. Problem solved, chop a foot off.

  • ||

    Whatever, Procrustes. I still can't un-see it. I just had to settle for Jennie Garth* until Melrose Place provided Amy Locane.

    * Gabrielle Carteris was sort of cute, I guess.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    * Gabrielle Carteris was sort of cute, I guess.
    No

  • ||

    YES. But she was by far the oldest main cast member.

  • ||

    Incidentally, I'd say Gabriell Carteris today looks better than Amy Locane.

  • ||

    Don't be a hater, Archduke. I was being generous, which I am not often wont to do. Besides, everyone knows Ian Ziering was the dreamiest.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    DON'T TALK SHIT ABOUT STEVE SANDERS

  • Almanian!||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAIANZIERING SERIOUSLY!??

    Luke. Perry.

    *mic drop*

  • ||

    Uh, dude, Brian Austin Green ended up with Megan Fox. Need I say more?

  • ||

    Luke. Perry.

    Did Luke Perry grow up to be a Chippendales dancer at 49? NO HE DID NOT.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Almanian!||

    CAN'T YOU PLEASE LET ME REMEMBER LUKE PERRY WHEN HE WAS YOUNG AND PERFECT??! YOU MONSTERS!

  • Pompey||

    I don't follow. His characters in Showtime's Jeremiah and HBO's Oz as the Reverend Cloutier were both fine acting.

  • ||

    You know who else had to settle for blondes due to his hatred of physical abnormality?

  • ||

    Hugh Hefner?

  • blcartwright||

    I met Shannen once about 20 years ago, and she was hot. She asked me about 90210 but I said "naw, don't watch that, Our House "

  • Two Fingers||

    The article focuses on SIDS, but swaddling is also associated with hip dysplasia, probably to a much higher degree than with SIDS. Hip dysplasia can be horrible problem with no good treatment (I'm an orthopedic surgeon). I could see how this may influence the NRC/etc in their recommendation.

    However, I still have to rain on their nanny parade. Babies can be swaddled and remove the risk of hip dysplasia by loosening the wrap around the legs to allow the hips to flex and fall away from the midline.

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah, my Lab got hip dysplasia. We never swaddled him.

    My kids didn't, and we did.

    Go figure!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Obama Boosts Military Aid to Iraq

    Facing a deadly resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq, President Barack Obama signaled Friday that he will begin increasing U.S. military support for Baghdad after five years of reducing it.

    The new U.S. plan represents a remarkable shift for Obama, whose administration trumpeted the 2011 withdrawal of the last U.S. troops from Iraq as a major achievement and has since shifted its attention to other regional challenges, such as Syria, Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    After a White House meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Obama said he shares al-Maliki’s fears about militants’ growing foothold in Iraq’s western province and will join the Iraqi leader’s effort to crack down. Administration officials said this would include growing intelligence support and new weaponry.

    Iraq: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

  • ||

    I can't tell if I'm happy or sad I missed shit like this in the early '80s (Born '83, this was done in '84):

    Deception of a Generation (92 minutes - there's an index though): Phil Phillips on the left (author of Turmoil in the Toybox), and pastor Gary Greenwald expose how Satan has infiltrated children's toys and cartoons.

    Highlights reel

  • Pathogen||

    "I can't tell if I'm happy or sad I missed shit like this in the early '80s (Born '83, this was done in '84):"

    And this is why you have no soul, heathen... REPENT!

  • ||

    Oh jesse, you missed out. The Satanic child abuse panics, the "play Judas Priest backwards for Satanic messages", it was all classic hilariousness. And Satan.

    THANK YOU SATAN

  • ||

    Don't get me wrong. I caught SOME of it. My parents made us watch something on how Satan was getting into people's souls through music well into the '90s that included a whole thing on backmasking, Stairway to Heaven, and the musical Hair. The things I learned from the song Sodomy...

  • ||

    jesse, I am disappoint. I thought you were referring to this 'Sodomy' song.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Crazy people are crazy no matter what their faith.

  • Almanian!||

    Watching "Uncle Buck". Now THIS is family entertainment! My kids watched this at grandpa's house when he was swaddle...er...babysitting them when they were young.

    John Candy - still liked him most in "Stripes". "No - see, you lose again!"

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    see also Planes Trains and Automobiles and The Great Outdoors

  • ||

    Hey Alamanian, take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face. Good day to you, sir.

  • ||

    Man death sucks, always taking the good actors too early.

  • JidaKida||

    Wow man, I never thought about it like that.

    www.PrivacyRoad.tk

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why does Randy Paul have a plagiarism problem?

    Reason.com says three whole pages were lifted from Heritage. The big issue I have is why Heritage? Why not a libertarian think tank?

  • Pathogen||

    Because... Boooosh!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Conservatives are dying - literally. Old SS fucks and rednecks make up the GOP base today. So why pander to them? California voted GOP for POTUS until the 90s and now the D' wins by 18-20 points there.

    It is time for conservatism to die off and libertarianism to replace it. That is all I am saying.

  • Pathogen||

    "Conservatives are dying - literally. Old SS fucks and rednecks make up the GOP base today. So why pander to them? "

    As are those hippies, Marxists, socialists, and "urban guerillas" from the progressive left, who are absolutely desperate to live on, vicariously through the millennials, all generally being baby-boomers as well. Define "redneck" PB, what does that stereotype mean to you?...

    "It is time for conservatism to die off and libertarianism to replace it. That is all I am saying."

    And accepting Obama as my lord and savior is key to that?

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|11.2.13 @ 9:01PM|#
    ..."California voted GOP for POTUS until the 90s and now the D' wins by 18-20 points there."....

    CA, the new Detroit!
    Way to go, shitstain!

  • Irish||

    Yeah. When California was Republican they were the most dynamic economy in the world and today they have massive pension liabilities, municipal bankruptcies, and 8.9% unemployment.

    Democrats: The only people on Earth who make Republicans look good.

  • Sevo||

    "Democrats: The only people on Earth who make Republicans look good."

    Boy, given the current CA GOP, I'm not sure.
    There seems to be a So Con power base impervious to concepts of liberty and not all that good on econ. The Dems suck (given that they're pawns of their union bosses), but it's hard to promote the CA GOP as something preferable.

  • Pathogen||

    I suspect that when bankruptcy, insolvency, and abject poverty break the unions stranglehold on all levels of California's nepotic government.. that glorious "18-20 points" is going to shrink a bit...

  • Irish||

    You assume that people will reject statism when the state destroys them. Given that the Argentinian government has spent the last 80 years destroying the lives of the people of that country, I'm not sure this is true. The Argentinians continue to vote for a powerful government despite the fact that it has ruined them.

    Argentina was like the 9th largest economy in the world in the early 1900s. They were completely ruined by Peronism and all of the governments since then. In 1900, Argentina had a per capita GDP 180% higher than Japan. Today their per capita GDP is less than half of Japan's. Between 1975 and 1990 their real per capita GDP fell 20%.

    They went from being the 9th largest economy on the planet to an inflation addled basketcase. If that couldn't get them to turn against the government, I think there are some people who are just incapable of seeing the light.

  • Sevo||

    I happen to be reading "The Russian Revolution" (Richard Pipes).
    The chapter on the Russian "intelligentsia" (read "pundits") is depressing, building as it does on Rousseau's "general will" (read "corrected consciousness"); there is no amount of dishonesty to which they did not grasp in the hopes of achieving the "new Soviet man"; the presumption is that man is presumed to be infinitely malleable by those who know how man is to be manipulated.
    The result is obvious to any who choose to see, and that would not include Obo and his accolades.

  • OneOut||

    They haven't run out of toilet paper yet so the lesson hasn't hit home.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    that glorious "18-20 points" is going to shrink a bit...

    Never underestimate the progressive's power of self deception.

    It will certainly be someone else's fault.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    that glorious "18-20 points" is going to shrink a bit...

    Never underestimate the progressive's power of self deception.

    It will certainly be someone else's fault.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    that glorious "18-20 points" is going to shrink a bit...

    Never underestimate the progressive's power of self deception.

    It will certainly be someone else's fault.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Rodents.

  • Sevo||

    Well:
    "Obama approval rating: Nearly twice as high as GOP"
    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....igh-as-gop
    You may hope that a kick in the slats could bring someone around to reality, but so long as there is a "free shit" fragrance in the breeze, the electorate is going to vote "free shit".
    There is a reason we have a constitution, and ignoring it turns matters over to the "free shit" crowd.

  • Irish||

    The GOP's approval rating is so low because a huge percentage of people who vote Republican hate the Republican party. Go read any conservative blog and half of the posts will be them bitching about how much they hate the Republican party. They'll still vote Republican because they hate the Democrats more.

    It should be noted that Obama's approval rating is lower than George Bush's was at this point in his presidency. Given how low Bush's approval rating got, that's a pretty terrible sign for Obama.

  • Sevo||

    Irish|11.2.13 @ 11:19PM|#
    "The GOP's approval rating is so low because a huge percentage of people who vote Republican hate the Republican party"

    In CA a good percentage hate the GOP because the GOP didn't somehow keep gays from marrying.
    I hate them as much as I hate lefties.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In CA a good percentage hate the GOP because the GOP didn't somehow keep gays from marrying. I hate them as much as I hate lefties.

    Because inability to get a piece of paper and a pat on the head from the state for your sex life, is equivalent to all the restrictions on liberty the Dems in CA are ramming through?

  • Pathogen||

    "The GOP's approval rating is so low because a huge percentage of people who vote Republican hate the Republican party."

    This ^

    The point that's never addressed, oddly enough...

  • C. Anacreon||

    Also, there is a balanced budget in CA right now, due to massive tax increases (try a 13.3% state income tax along with a 10% sales tax) and the Dems here are dancing in the streets, saying that because of the death of the Republican party in CA all is wonderful and proper. Oh, they do moan that college isn't free, and are hoping to revoke Prop 13 to get even more property taxes out of all of us (being the highest-tax state already isn't good enough, you know). Amazingly enough, Governor Jerry Moonbeam Brown has been the surprising sober one in this crowd, and he has vetoed tons of bills that would have made things even worse. When Jerry Brown is the right wing of your government, you know things are pretty wack. I'd love to go elsewhere but the weather and terrain are so damn good.

  • Irish||

    The balanced budget is also based on taking on massive amounts of future debt that California has no capacity to pay back. It's a farce.

  • Irish||

    Also, every time a liberal tries to explain to me that California is totally coming back, I like to point out that California has the highest poverty rate in the country and the second highest unemployment.

    Isn't liberal policy supposed to decrease poverty? Well then how do you explain how California has a higher poverty rate than evil right-wing Texas while also having much lower employment among the lower class? It's almost like there's solid proof that left-wing policies inevitably fail, and they just refuse to admit it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    What about the Dems who disapprove of BO? There are a lot of them, too.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Why pander to parasitical progressives?

  • Jordan||

    You realize that Heritage is not the only organization cited in his book, right? Furthermore, please explain what is so unreasonable about the passages taken from Heritage instead of engaging in ad hominems. I see nothing that a True Classical Liberal (TM) should be outraged about.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Was Heritage cited? If so then there is no legit plagiarism charge.

  • Jordan||

    Did you even read the link you were discussing?

  • Sevo||

    Jordan|11.2.13 @ 9:12PM|#
    "Did you even read the link you were discussing?"

    Shreek? Why would that stinking pile of shit ever let data affect his cheer-leading?
    Right, shitpile?

  • ||

    In this case, Paul included a link to the Heritage case study in the book’s footnotes, though he made no effort to indicate that not just the source, but the words themselves, had been taken from Heritage.

    He cited his source, albeit it was sloppy work. Good thing he's a Senator and not a college student.

  • ||

    "Randy Paul"

    Derp da derp da tiddly terp.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    A new study suggests babies can actually learn lullabies before they're born

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And the article says their memory starting at the 27th week is an argument for third trimester personhood. Hey, I didnt bring it up, the article did.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    4 words the world isn't ready for: Rob Ford Sex Tape

  • Rhywun||

    Flapping-head porn is the worst. *Shiver*

  • Warrren||

    I've heard Robert Ford likes to do people from behind.

  • Irish||

  • Rhywun||

    Meh, I wish Bloomberg had been paying more attention to a crack addiction than to "getting stuff done".

  • Warrren||

    So the overnight thread is on how to swindle babies? What the everlasting fuck Reason?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Swindle babies? Too easy. They suck at 3 card monty.

  • Pathogen||

    LOL.. I have bags of their candy... and noses.. pwn'ing them n00bs

  • ||

    AlterNet perpetuates a new theory: The Stab-in-the-Back Theory of Obamacare

    2. Obamacare did not have meaningful price controls.

    ...While the law limits the percent of administrative costs that are part of premiums and that took effect in 2012, it does not regulate overall costs. Does anybody think insurers were not going to lock in profits and gouge the public when they could?
    [...]
    Is anyone surprised policies now are canceled?

    Nobody should be surprised at the latest outrage from the industry, which iscanceling hundreds of thousands of individuals’ policies, making the president eat his words that anyone can keep coverage they like. Obama ought to have known better. But as Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius told Congress Wednesday, insurers are canceling policies or offering higher-priced substitutes because the old policies don’t meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements.

    People might be angry that their policy is being canceled or might cost more if they can’t get a federal subsidy, but they would feel a lot worse if they were hospitalized and faced thousands in unexpected bills and hounding by debt collectors. Who’s more at fault here, Obama for being played like a card, or insurers for selling bad policies in the first place?

    It's a cult, plain and simple.

  • Sevo||

    Gee, a couple of weeks ago, the guy was a master if 5D chess, and now he's a sucker for someone who is (amazingly!) responding to obvious incentives?
    Is he:
    1) A chameleon?
    2) An ignoramus?
    3) A lying piece of shit?

  • Pathogen||

    "5 reasons Obama shouldn’t have trusted the insurance industry"

    Who needs trust when you have them at the barrel of a gun you're complicit with them, as their #1 shill...

  • Warrren||

    Obama the Naive is what they'll call him.

    A saintly figure ensconced in the light of the righteous, believing all men are good.

    Now forever cursed to be betrayed by those lesser men who would rather put their own interests ahead of what the Righteous Light has called them to do.

    He gave them a task, a task that would bring them into the Light but the Light was too strong for them for they were weaklings. They could not forgo their petty needs and desires. And so they fell back from the Light. Doomed forever to Darkness to the Pit of self-service and greed.

  • Jordan||

    LOL this is excellent.

  • Calidissident||

    You know who else claimed that his country's leaders were stabbed in the back?

  • ||

    Marc Antony?

  • Swiss Servator, Burn a Böögg||

    Egon Krentz?

  • Irish||

    Top Chef Star on MSNBC: We fixed poverty in the 1960's but then Reagan made poverty happen again.

    I...I'm not entirely sure I agree with your version of events there, big guy.

  • Pathogen||

    "Thus solving the problem once and for all"

    But..

    "ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!"

  • ||

    If I watched top chef cause I cared about cohliccio's opinion on anything, this would piss me off. Since I only watch it for the mad cooking skills and interesting dishes, I won't worry too much about Tom's idiotic thoughts on poverty.

    Here's a thought though Tom: how about you put your money where your mouth is and donate all of your salary and residuals to helping the poor. Tool.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Related liberal fantasy: All of CA's problems are because of the Great Satan Reagan's governership, with some Arnie thrown in for good measure.

  • Slammer||

    Sort of a fun little tension convention over Obamacare:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/1.....ng-liberal

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Is there anything more annoying than bitstrips?

  • Warrren||

    I was perfectly happy not knowing that existed.

  • ||

    So THAT'S what they're called. Seriously, fuck. bitstrips.

  • JeremyR||

    Here's something Reason can bring up the next time they are on Russia Today

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....nsfer.html

    Oh yeah, they won't.

  • Irish||

    Hasn't Reason had a bunch of posts about the mistreatment of Pussy Riot?

    Example.

    Example.

    I agree that I don't like the fact that Reason writers have no problem going on a Russian propaganda network, but claiming that Reason is somehow unwilling to cover Pussy Riot is a lie.

  • Redmanfms||

    So I've had my first "but, INTENTIONS!!!!" conversation with a prog. On YouTube (ugh, I normally avoid commenting because the YT commentariat is so reliably retarded, but I sometimes can't help myself):

    Dipshit (responding to somebody else who responded to him): "..other than what I thought years ago." Okay. No preconceptions? No denial either, I suppose? Look...there is truth, but there is also the fabrication of "a truth". What is the driving force of this plan?

    Is it to enslave, or to liberate? When a pickpocket meets a holy man, he sees only his pockets. Do you want something good, and could you accept it as good if you found it? Your comments reveal more than you think.

    Me: Is this jumble of pseudo-philosophical sophistry a passive-aggressive attempt to entreat us to judge the law (plan) on the stated intentions of those who created it rather than its actual merits?

    Dipshit: Well, thanks for the psycho analysis, but I would suggest my comment seems pseudo philosophical to you precisely because you fail to examine intent. My intent was to point that out, but yours is to create a comical subterfuge.
    .
    We should endure a great deal of ineptitude, and even blatant failure if the INTENT is without malice. If it is, my question is: why pile on...why obfuscate and diminish a well intended effort? Maybe you crave self inflicted suffering? ACA covers treatment of that.

  • Redmanfms||

    Me: "We should endure a great deal of ineptitude, and even blatant failure if the INTENT is without malice."
    This is your religion, isn't it? Except instead of a Skygod you have politicians and their intentions.
    "why obfuscate and diminish a well intended effort?"
    Pointing out an abysmal failure is not obfuscation, bleating about intentions and demanding we forgive abject failure (this law HARMS people, regardless of the intentions) because of intent IS obfuscation.

  • Sevo||

    "why obfuscate and diminish a well intended effort?"

    Because it didn't do what it was supposed to do, you idiot! Results matter; intent is irrelevant.
    Is that sufficient?

  • Sevo||

    "you idiot!"
    Not you, Redmanfms

  • Agammamon||

    Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you, go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here, CLOSE!

    I once used a version of the GGGR speech on some of my, uh, lesser performing subordinates. Had to explain to them that I don't care how good of a person they are or how hard they are trying - only what they can do for me and if they can't get the job done I'll find someone who can.

  • Irish||

    Well, thanks for the psycho analysis, but I would suggest my comment seems pseudo philosophical to you precisely because you fail to examine intent. My intent was to point that out, but yours is to create a comical subterfuge.
    .
    We should endure a great deal of ineptitude, and even blatant failure if the INTENT is without malice. If it is, my question is: why pile on...why obfuscate and diminish a well intended effort? Maybe you crave self inflicted suffering? ACA covers treatment of that.

    This guy sounds totally insufferable. He also sounds like a parody. I can't believe someone would really think this.

  • Sevo||

    "Slain LAX TSA officer remembered as a family man"
    OK, but how about remembered as a man who grabbed the crotch of anyone he could find?
    That's the way I remember him.

  • Warrren||

    Crotch securement procedures were followed.

  • Pathogen||

    Here lies " LAX TSA officer "

    Splitter of colostomy bags, groper of grandmothers and granddaughters alike, stealer of iPods, dealer of drugs, planter of dry ice bombs, and a general pain in the ass to commuters... cut down in his prime, before he could fully realize his vision of hassling the commoners at ball games, political events, bus and train stations, vipr checkpoints, and everywhere else where his scope and mandate could be exceeded... we will truly miss his all too familiar groping and prodding.. but alas, the show must go on...

  • C. Anacreon||

    My wife, who goes absolutely ballistic about the TSA to the point she circulates anti-TSA petitions at the airport (she travels a lot for work and doesn't trust the scanners, so she goes through the full-body-grope every time) said she had mixed feelings about this guy getting killed. Is she a bad person because of that?

  • Irish||

    That's pretty fucking terrible.

  • C. Anacreon||

    That's pretty fucking terrible.

    I agree. But I do believe she feels awful for the guy himself, and certainly doesn't think he deserved to die. She was just being honest about the concept of the whole thing, and saying that it brought up mixed feelings for her -- and she herself felt pretty fucking terrible to even think that way.

    As I said, it brought up mixed feelings for her -- anguish that the guy had to die, but there is a part of her that just despises the TSA. So she's feeling pretty bad overall that this even would bring up mixed feelings. And she's asking if that difficulty, that confusion, makes her a bad person. It sounds like everyone thinks that she is. So I won't bring it up again, and I'll tell her she needs to really re-eval her thoughts.

  • Pathogen||

    Was he addressing you or me? My post was about me being a 8===D, your post was about your wife being torn between her compassion for another human being, and the loathsome bureaucracy he represented...

  • ||

    She's not a bad person at all. Her mixed emotions are totally human and normal considering what the government puts some travelers through.

  • Pathogen||

    "said she had mixed feelings about this guy getting killed."

    To be fair, my post was more about the agency than the individual. I'm certain that his family's pain is very real. But, that being said, anyone's loss to murder (or any other cause of death) is just as real, being a TSA agent didn't somehow make it more special, or tragic. I loath that agency, and in the one incident where they were supposed to be the authority, and miraculously, somehow save people from the "terroristz", they got caught with their pants around their ankles. The kabuki theater was exposed to the ugly truth...

  • prolefeed||

    "said she had mixed feelings about this guy getting killed."

    To be fair, my post was more about the agency than the individual.

    I've had some ... experiences ... with the TSA. Maybe if I knew the person, I might feel some sadness at their death, but in the abstract, fuck them all. The ones I've encountered seem to be bastards who need to have a lot greater fear of those they mistreat.

  • ||

    He didn't deserve to die. He's no hero by any stretch, but he didn't deserve to die.

    The TSA should be abolished and its security functions contracted out to a private company.

  • Pathogen||

    "The TSA should be abolished and its security functions contracted out to a private company."

    U.S. Customs/port authority, and the state/local police seemed to have a pretty good handle on it until ~09/11/2001, I think... Still do, considering that this asshole was shot by.. the police.

  • OneOut||

    Is she hot and a good cook ?

    If so you should cut her some slack.

    If she can't cook then you might suggest she atone for her feelings with some homemade biscuits.

  • ||

    So just a poll of you guys, my dog appears to have eaten an unknown amount of chocolate.

    He was all jittery and hyper for an hour and a half and had the signs of caffeine intake. Now he's calmed down to where he's laying still but he doesn't look quite right.

    I'm pretty sure, though, that he'd need to eat quite a bit of chocolate for it be serious, right?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    What type of chocolate?

  • ||

    No idea. I looked around meticulously for wrappers but didn't find any.

    I have a one year old nephew that visits everyday with my sister, so I think perhaps he may have left some M&Ms; or something on the floor.

    It's happened once to him before many years ago and he got much sicker because it was a box of cookies he got into, so that's why I'm thinking he hate a much smaller amount this time.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Pathogen||

    What is your dogs size/weight

    And why do you believe it was chocolate?

  • ||

    He's a 38lb beagle, 9 years old.

    I say chocolate because Halloween was a few days ago and both my younger sisters had big bags of candy.

    Plus the fact that he was hyper and agitated for no reason earlier, like he was caffeinated.

  • Pathogen||

    According to that toxicity meter, up to a pound of milk chocolate (common candy) would fall short of a severe problem, and the wrapper pile from a pound of candy would be difficult to overlook.

  • ||

    Yeah thanks for that link. He had the shakes earlier along with the restless pacing and panting, but he's since calmed down to where he's laying in one spot.

    As long as it isn't an emergency I don't think we'll take him to the vet.

  • Pathogen||

    Plants around the house often pose more of a problem, you have any plants within reach?

  • ||

    We have a backyard but as far as I know nothing toxic, I mean he's out there everyday.

    I'm responsible for giving his daily walks and I don't recall him eating anything he found on the ground. So I can't think of anything more likely than chocolate.

  • OneOut||

    But he could have eaten the wrappers.

  • Pathogen||

    (S)He's gonna shit... everywhere.

  • Snark Plissken||

    “The optimal age for children to be in group care settings is three months and [so we looked at whether babies should] still be swaddled after three months.”

    Am I the only one who found this bizarre? Pawning of three month olds to daycare is 'optimal'. If you don't have the resources to take care of your kid at home (including breast-feeding) for at least six months, maybe you shouldn't be having that kid in the first place.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Maybe they are suggesting that babies at 3 months need to be socialized so they don't develop evul anti-government tendencies...

  • buybuydandavis||

    "As a parent, I feel the same way. Why should the decision to wrap or not wrap my baby be made by an unaccountable stranger? "

    haw haw haw

    You think you live in a free country where the right to decide what's best for you and yours is respected by your neighbors?

    haw haw haw

    Why? Because fuck you, that's why. Because your neighbors are theocrats who want the gummint to decide what's right, and then force that right on you. They want to be slaves, so you're going to be one too.

  • OneOut||

    These daycare people must hate children.

    Why the War on Children ?

    You non statists never give up do you ?

  • Sarah S.||

    I'm a big fan of Dr. Karp's, and many of his tips, including swaddling, saved me in those early weeks/months of parenthood. I agree that mastering the perfect swaddle can be tough (though I certainly don't see that as a reason to ban it completely!)
    Here's a really helpful blog post including a quick video on the proper way to swaddle. And, it is presented by a pediatrician.
    http://mamaseeds.com/blog/baby.....ter-sleep/

  • thorax232||

    How long before it's illegal to put your baby in clothes?

  • herbisonkaka||

    my classmate's ex-wife makes $65 an hour on the internet. She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her payment was $17168 just working on the internet for a few hours. browse around this site

    ======================
    http://www.works23.com

  • johnd2||

    Swaddling was good enough for baby Jesus. How could anyone but a barbarian heathen complain.

  • Cloudbuster||

    There's no such thing as "wonderful" day care for a three-month-old. Parents putting small children into daycare really need to examine their priorities.

  • PapaSnigz||

    Guys, seriously! We all know that child care should be left to the smart people, like Joe Biden! I mean who really has your child's best interests at heart; you, or your elected officials?

  • Pied Piper||

    A fluff article to discredit Pennsylvania.

    If it was a federal law then it is ridiculous.

    Perhaps the day care worker to number of babies is high in parts of Pennsylvania. Perhaps there have been deaths the article could not find. Perhaps they have concerns that we might not feel worthy. Whatever the case the law is their decision, and with a doctor's note it can easily be bypassed.

  • KarrenMahoney||

    my co-worker's sister-in-law makes hourly on the laptop. She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her payment was just working on the laptop for a few hours. pop over to this web-site........ http://www.works23.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement