Here’s the latest piece of news that set off my Libertarian Bat Phone™: Nevada, the state known worldwide for its conservativeness, high moral standards, and overall regard for its citizens, pushed a law through its legislature requiring Nevada school districts to send home the “Educational Involvement Accord” with all of its students. The EIA is a contract that parents must sign, pledging “active involvement” in their child’s education, and that they will encourage their children to read, attend school, complete their homework, and cut back on TV and video games. The big kicker is that they must also promise to volunteer a minimum of 5 hours per year at school or a school-sponsored event.

While no one would argue that the above recommendations are worthwhile, and a goal we should all strive for, taking it beyond suggestion and signing it into law is going too far. A parent that takes no interest in whether or not their son skips school or if their daughter studied for that Algebra final is a shitty parent, to be sure, but they have the right to be a shitty parent. If I choose to allow my kid to flunk out of school, then my family has to deal with the guilt and the consequences. Every child has a human right to a quality primary education, but that doesn’t mean they should be forced to take full advantage of it. It’s extremely insulting to us that actually *do* give a rat’s ass — I have no one to answer to about my children other than myself, period. Being required to volunteer at the school feels less like volunteering and more like being sentenced to community service. To solve the problems within our school districts, we need *less* government interference in education, not more. Is it any wonder that private schools are better than public, while operating at the same — and often less — cost per student?

What’s next, government appointed guardians who keep a log of my children’s fruit and vegetable intake? Maybe transponders installed in our televisions and computers so schools can monitor our kids’ off-campus activities? Oh, right…

Bookmark to:
    

After stumbling upon Jessica’s recent post about Toys ‘R Us allegedly harrassing a breastfeeding mother, TRU’s PR manager forwarded us two letters that went out today to the New York Civil Liberties Union in a clear effort to try and stave off the NYCLU’s veiled threat of a lawsuit. One is from Gerald L. Storch, Chairman and CEO of TRU, the other, from Mindy Clements, the general manager of the Times Square TRU store where this all took place, who says she is “also a new mother” and that she feels she is “especially sensitive to issues involving a mother’s right to breastfeed where she chooses”.

Of course, these are most assuredly carefully crafted bits of PR, but given that this whole incident seems to be hearsay and in the interest of objectivity, I’m reprinting both letters here. Read them in their entirety after the jump:

continue reading…

Bookmark to:
    

According to the New York Sun, a woman who was breastfeeding in a NYC Toys ‘R Us was asked by several sales associates to move to their private nursing room in the store’s basement. The controversy stems from how and why she was asked. Toys ‘R Us is claiming that the associates merely asked her if she would be more comfortable in the private area. The mother claims that they told her breastfeeding in the middle of so many families and children was not appropriate. By the time this alleged snafu escalated to what might have elicited further action, the mother was done breastfeeding and went about her business.

The New York Civil Liberties Union says that if TRU doesn’t educate their employees and offer a public apology, they will sue them for violating this woman’s civil rights. The kicker is that in their own press release listed on the ACLU website, they threaten to sue for “compensation”.

FOR WHAT?! At most this women was offended. She was not evicted from the store, she was not denied being able to shop there. Is this what we’ve come to? Should we compensate people just for being offended?

If what TRU is claiming to be true, that she was simply asked if she would feel more comfortable in a more isolated location (which I know some breastfeeding women would be), is that an actionable offense? Perhaps many associates asked, just like how you get asked by 5 salespeople if they can help you, but so what? One associate may not know that somebody has already approached them. It happens all the time.

What exactly are her damages?

I support civil rights, in fact I think we should have more rights and less government intrusion into our lives, yet the NYCLU is contridicting their original intentions by taking away one’s right to be ignorant and say something offensive and naive. Holding corporations hostage for the political intelligence and savvyness of their employees is outrageous. Ideally, TRU probably should include training on the right to breastfeed in public, but are they to be held accountable for a particular person’s sensitivity too?

I say, if you don’t like a rude associate, don’t continue to shop at such a place. Allow consumers to “punish” TRU if they think that’s appropriate, but must we use breastfeeding as a tool to push social and political censorship of unpopular opinion or saying something that is seemingly innocuous, but offensive to those with a particular agenda?

From www.nysun.com

Bookmark to: