Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Department of Labor: All your little farm children are belong to us!

Remember: if one regulation is just and useful — say, putting a cap on the number of hours per week a child under a certain age can work in a factory — than all federal regulations are just and righteous, and if you don’t happen to agree with them, you are a vicious, mercenary capitalist who, given the chance, would have bent Upton Sinclair over a butcher block and buggered him with a lamb shank.

Or so I’m told by many “liberals” whenever I complain about ever new governmental regulations that presume to micromanage everything from our medicine cabinets to our lightbulbs to our house painting to our vegetable gardens.

To which I say this: blow me, fascists.

CNS:

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis faced congressional opposition Wednesday over the Obama administration’s proposed regulations that would curtail what chores children are allowed to do on their own family’s farm.

Among other things, the Labor Department wants to bar children under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvest and curing of tobacco; operating almost all “power-driven” equipment; and working with animals in feed lots, grain silos, stockyards, or livestock auctions.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told Solis that the proposed regulations would change the way family farms work, preventing farm kids from learning their parents’ trade.

“This is an issue that fundamentally alters an historic and familiar relationship [that is] so important to America and particularly important to rural America,” Moran said during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Moran called the regulations “overly broad,” giving a few examples:

“Regulations prohibiting a young person from working six feet off the ground mean that no child, no young person, is going to be in the cab of a tractor or a combine. And in fact, your rules suggest that a young person could not even use a power-driven screwdriver.”

Moran said in his view, “If the federal government can regulate the kind of relationship between parents and their children on their own family’s farm, there is almost nothing off-limit” when it comes to government intrusion.

[my emphasis]

Senator Moran, you’ll note, says that like it’s a bad thing. I mean, once the government assumes all responsibility, imagine the freedom the rest of us will have to live our lives without consequence!

Besides, clearly Sen Moran hates children and views them as nothing more than birthed appendages to a working farm — kind of like little human cotton gins fueled on whole milk and corn bread — and given the opportunity he would thoroughly exploit the poor little demi-wards of the state, as would their unsavory pig-farming parents, who shouldn’t have the right to force dangerous slave labor on helpless children just because they happened to sire them.

There’s a reason these “rightwingers” fight against benevolent government watchdogism: they’re greedy mercantilists who long for the days of slavery and fully unregulated free market capitalism.

Whereas the Left, through a kindly government, is here to protect your freedom to live your life without consequence, fully owned and controlled by a very kindly government master.

Who, if you ever get to DC, will even allow you into the Big White House!

28 Replies to “Department of Labor: All your little farm children are belong to us!”

  1. Ernst Schreiber says:

    How ya BREEDERS gonna run yer family farms without the help of illegals immigrant laborers who do the work lazy Americans won’t do now?

  2. Car in says:

    Humn … we can kill our children up until they point they are a few hours old, but once they’re born, we have reduced say in what they may do.

    Interesting.

  3. Crawford says:

    Among other things, the Labor Department wants to bar children under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvest and curing of tobacco; operating almost all “power-driven” equipment; and working with animals in feed lots, grain silos, stockyards, or livestock auctions.

    Under these regulations, my family would likely not have been able to afford to send ANY of the kids to college. Mom and Dad worked, but we also farmed — tobacco and occasionally cattle. My brothers also raised a little extra money cutting firewood from our woods — with chain saws, naturally.

    These are not safety regulations — though I’d admit that some of the work with tobacco is dangerous, I’d also point out that no one in my family was ever seriously hurt doing that work. Cuts and scratches, sure, but that’s why it’s called “work”. The restrictions on livestock work are, IMHO, simply there to destroy 4H and FFA.

    Hmmm… if the definitions are broad enough, I suspect we’d also have had to do without eggs, as we kids were responsible for gathering them from the chickens.

    I’ve never felt more personally targeted by the government. Obama denied the request for a disaster declaration for Franklin Township, OH — where I grew up. Now he’s saying the childhood I had is illegal.

  4. Car in says:

    I would venture to guess that more children are “injured” in their “play” than while working on a farm.

    But judging by the injuries that occur on a sky hill. Or on a bike. Or driving a car.

    cripes – being a kid is dangerous. We should ban it.

  5. Pablo says:

    Whose children do you think they are, anyway?

  6. Crawford says:

    There are no citizens left in the United States. There are the Clients, and the Cattle. The Clients exist to be fed, housed, and clothed by the Government; the Cattle exist to be harvested so as to feed, house, and clothe the Clients.

  7. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Don’t you think we’re already doing just that?

  8. sdferr says:

    Does the birth and growth of industrial farming techniques and methods have a direct correlation with the withering of a more robust conservative thought across the broader population? That is, when men in their bulk numbers move from the countryside into cities, does their onetime immediate connection to the regularities of the earth (in general, to nature) fall away, giving place to the dominance of conventions as new regularities (such as conventions may pretend to be)? If not precisely a necessary connection, wouldn’t it appear to be at least a probable one?

    Which is to say in turn that the assumption of more dominant conventional stances in place of more nearly natural stances can be overcome with effort, but if with effort, some motive force to propel that effort must be first acquired. We might call that motive force, skepticism.

  9. leigh says:

    I see a boom in prison camp construction for all of us negligent parents who taught our kids to drive before they were ten, to use power tools, take engines apart, use log splitters, drive tractors and lawn tractors, small dirt bikes and power boats.

    I even have my kids climb extension ladders to clean out the gutters and retrieve their basketballs and other throwing objects off the roof.

  10. LBascom says:

    They’re losing their fucking minds.

  11. cranky-d says:

    Can you lose something you no longer have?

  12. B Moe says:

    who, given the chance, would have bent Upton Sinclair over a butcher block and buggered him with a lamb shank.

    Only if he begged me.

    And why are these people outlawing the only fun things for a kid to do on a farm? Why do they hate children?

  13. Squid says:

    …does their onetime immediate connection to the regularities of the earth (in general, to nature) fall away, giving place to the dominance of conventions as new regularities (such as conventions may pretend to be)?

    I think it’s all of a piece, as the technological progress of our forebears has so nearly assured our safety, survival and comfort that we no longer give much thought to the fundamental principles underlying our modern lives. Absent such a comfortable environment, I believe most of us would be forced to pay much more attention to the Gods of the Copybook Headings.

    (I do have to point at the absurdity of “the regularities of the Earth.” If the Earth were regular, we would not need irrigation, nor roofs over our heads.)

  14. Crawford says:

    If the Earth were regular, we would not need irrigation, nor roofs over our heads.

    Why do I have an image of Jamie Lee Curtis shoveling Activia down a bore hole somewhere?

  15. sdferr says:

    You can’t take those regularities as the flow of the seasons, as the nearness of births and deaths, as the progress of the stars overhead and even the planets wandering in their courses Squid?

  16. Squid says:

    sdferr,

    My ancestors, for as much as they understood that Winter Is Coming, were probably a lot more concerned that they would take enough food from the harvest to see them through the inevitable winter. And the abundance or scarcity of the harvest was largely dependent on each day’s weather, and the coming of locusts or blight or bandits or war, none of which are terribly predictable.

    I know that when I’m doing my yearly wilderness camping, I’m a hell of a lot more focused on each day’s uncertainties than I am on the givens. (The stars, I will grant you, are majestic as all get-out.)

  17. sdferr says:

    Regularities doesn’t entail predictability to daily precision, though, so much as point to the non-absurdities by which we are surrounded in nature as such, and possessing, as we say, a nature of our own fit to that natural articulation. I mean, if we notice that our habitat has a regular dry season, and we’re dependent on rain water to kick off our seed, we’ll hardly go scattering seed in the expected midst of the dry season, will we?

    To put this slightly more directly, perhaps, we claim that the regularity of human nature inclines us to the order we make in our politics. The political left, on the contrary, contends there is no human nature, period. Disconnect us humans from the immediacy of nature in general and I believe we will be far more susceptible to accepting the assertions of the political left.

  18. sdferr says:

    Or, Montesquieu vs. Marx.

  19. Squid says:

    I believe the Left have largely deluded themselves into thinking that they have mastery over Man and Nature. Such delusion would not be possible if they (and more importantly, their flocks) were more often exposed to the whimsical violence of Mother Nature. Dependable harvests, sturdy homes, and antibiotics have made a lot of people way too cocky.

  20. Dale Price says:

    Their first mistake was having children in the first place. These contraceptives are being offered for “free” for a reason, people. Take the hint.

  21. sdferr says:

    I had merely hoped you’d have taken my meaning, is all.

    Or alternatively, Sophocles’ chorus:

    strophe 1

    Wonders are many, and none is more wonderful than man; the power that crosses the white sea, driven by the stormy south-wind, making a path under surges that threaten to engulf him; and Earth, the eldest of the gods, the immortal, the unwearied, doth he wear, turning the soil with the offspring of horses, as the ploughs go to and fro from year to year.

    antistrophe 1

    And the light-hearted race of birds, and the tribes of savage beasts, and the sea-brood of the deep, he snares in the meshes of his woven toils, he leads captive, man excellent in wit. And he masters by his arts the beast whose lair is in the wilds, who roams the hills; he tames the horse of shaggy mane, he puts the yoke upon its neck, he tames the tireless mountain bull.

    strophe 2

    And speech, and wind-swift thought, and all the moods that mould a state, hath he taught himself; and how to flee the arrows of the frost, when ’tis hard lodging under the clear sky, and the arrows of the rushing rain; yea, he hath resource for all; without resource he meets nothing that must come: only against Death shall he call for aid in vain; but from baffling maladies he hath devised escapes.

    antistrophe 2

    Cunning beyond fancy’s dream is the fertile skill which brings him, now to evil, now to good. When he honours the laws of the land, and that justice which he hath sworn by the gods to uphold, proudly stands his city: no city hath he who, for his rashness, dwells with sin. Never may he share my hearth, never think my thoughts, who doth these things!

  22. LBascom says:

    I would say(if I’m close to your thrust sdferr) that the further society is removed from nature and natures laws, the more likely it is society will embrace a philosophy at odds with natures laws. Utopianism.

  23. Squid says:

    Disconnect us humans from the immediacy of nature in general and I believe we will be far more susceptible to accepting the assertions of the political left.

    sdferr,

    I took the above to mean “removed from objective reality, we’re a lot likelier to buy the contrived reality of our would-be masters.” Hence, my comments on their delusions of grandeur, and how they’d never get away with it if their audience were confronted regularly with a reality at odds with what they’re being sold.

    I don’t think you and I are really that far apart.

  24. sdferr says:

    I don’t think we’re apart at all Squid, as it happens. Hence my surprise at your initial thrust (I do have to point at the absurdity of “the regularities of the Earth.”) When we speak of natural right — and we do — we aren’t kidding.

  25. Squid says:

    Yeah, I was obviously coming at the thing from a different perspective. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some small children that are neglecting their painful, nasty, dangerous farm work. Where’s my cat o’ nine tails?

  26. SDN says:

    sdferr, it’s actually even simpler: every facet of your existence, from food to water to transport to whatever, is dependent on other people in a city. There is literally nothing you can do for yourself, including taking a dump, which in the city depends on a functioning sewer system.

  27. SDN says:

    Meant to add: this is even more true than it was in the Founders time, because unlike the Founders, no one can really decide to get up and move away from other people.

  28. georgfelis says:

    Ok, now that the Administration has unleashed the EPA on farmers on the dust pollution they emit, and the DOT on the trucks they drive, and strangled the USDA conservation programs that help farmers while siphoning off that money to food stamps, and now this, can we *now* say they are engaged in a war against Agriculture?

Comments are closed.