Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Pampers Rorschach Test

    Pampers Rorschach Test

    What messages — intended by Pampers or not — do you see in this commercial?

    (h/t @TomBevanRCP)

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Danby, you might have had a point but for

    "17-year-olds are not suitable for parenthood after all"

    In our society, that's basically true.

    And what does it have to do with abortion?

    Understandable that Pampers would not be concerned about an inevitable boycott from the boycott-happy people WITHOUT BABIES who would find this objectionable… but they may have underestimated the number of such adults who require diapers and pacifiers themselves.

    I watched it over and over again until it came to me clearly that P&G; was subtly urging those involved in the debt ceiling debate to at least consider that the practical application of the Ricardian equivalence theorem in light of the present (and continuing) monetary contraction may not have the dire consequences that we all fear, and that we need to stop ignoring this particular elephant in the room and deal with it.

    Either that, or "poop can be fun" (which, as it turns out, is just a simpler way of expressing the first idea.)

    "And yeah, let's disparage anyone who doesn't meet our middle-class test and tell them they are categorically bad parents. Poor people and 17-year-olds are not suitable for parenthood after all."
    – – –

    The two-parent, sufficient-income-to-feed-everyone, mature-enough-to-deal-with-life model of parenthood didn't become the ideal simply so we suburban types would have someone to make fun of.

    It became the ideal because kids born into such situations tend to – note that I say TEND TO – have better lives than those born to poor people who cannot feed themselves much less dependent kids, or to fourteen-year-old gumchewers who couldn't afford to buy a pet that would love them and so instead had a pet baby.

    Yes, one situation tends to be better for the kids than the others. Are we issuing a blanket condemnation of all people involved in such "other" situations? No. Blanket condemnations are more in your bailiwick.

    It may hurt the feelings of fourteen-year-old moms to hear this. That is not sufficient reason to pretend that each situation is as good as any other situation.

    Quote "And you wonder why people call conservatives hypocritical."

    Just because you heard a big word on MSNBC doesn't mean you should try using it in a sentence without looking it up in a dictionary first.

    What does genius think happens to the abortion rate when you act approving of promiscuity out of wedlock? If irresponsible parenting is touted as a fabulous lifestyle… do you think more or less people are going to have irresponsible sexual relationships? And more or fewer irresponsible relationships will lead to more or fewer irresponsible family decisions?

    In what bizzaro world does encouraging a culture of irresponsibility on one area discourage irresponsibility in a closely related area?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend