![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsBill O'Reilly went off on a rant last night about about Nadya Suleman, the woman who just had octuplets after receiving fertility drugs, eight babies who add to her already overburdened brood of six children, all living in a three-room apartment. Suleman's relatives have said she's obsessed with having babies, has no visible means of support, and enjoys being "a professional student."
I think there's something wrong with Nadya Suleman. Oddly enough, though, I'm principled enough to think that Ms. Suleman, and her hive, should be allowed to muddle through existence without interference from the state.
But O'Reilly, in his Infinite Wisdom™, completely abandons every last conservative principle about women being allowed to have children, about people being allowed to make their own mistakes, and about the privacy that people should have to make their own decisions, as he goes into a tear about how The State should "do something," and "will do something" because public outcry is so loud. Bill O'Reilly wants The State to "do something" for these kids because he, in his Infinite Wisdom&trade, thinks that he knows better than Ms. Suleman what's right for her family and her children.
Does he and his pinhead (™ Bill O'Reilly) audience not understand that when you give the state the arbitrary power to make that decision without due process and without clear guidelines, when he allows the Wisdom of Repugnance (™ William Kass) to override the basic foundations of law and decency in this country? No, apparently not. O'Reilly apparently fails to understand the difference between public opprobrium and state interference. His repugnance is all that is necessary for him to engage the machinery of an armed institution.
Oh, and Ms. Suleman? It's not a clown car.
I think there's something wrong with Nadya Suleman. Oddly enough, though, I'm principled enough to think that Ms. Suleman, and her hive, should be allowed to muddle through existence without interference from the state.
But O'Reilly, in his Infinite Wisdom™, completely abandons every last conservative principle about women being allowed to have children, about people being allowed to make their own mistakes, and about the privacy that people should have to make their own decisions, as he goes into a tear about how The State should "do something," and "will do something" because public outcry is so loud. Bill O'Reilly wants The State to "do something" for these kids because he, in his Infinite Wisdom&trade, thinks that he knows better than Ms. Suleman what's right for her family and her children.
Does he and his pinhead (™ Bill O'Reilly) audience not understand that when you give the state the arbitrary power to make that decision without due process and without clear guidelines, when he allows the Wisdom of Repugnance (™ William Kass) to override the basic foundations of law and decency in this country? No, apparently not. O'Reilly apparently fails to understand the difference between public opprobrium and state interference. His repugnance is all that is necessary for him to engage the machinery of an armed institution.
Oh, and Ms. Suleman? It's not a clown car.
