“A vegan couple in New York City were busted for starving their baby daughter — by denying her breast milk and formula, feeding her only nuts, fruits and vegetables, and allegedly failing to get her medical help for severe malnutrition,” FOXNews reports.
“Joseph and Silva Swinton, both 31, were arrested Friday and charged with reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child for failing to properly feed and care for their baby, Ice.”
The Swintons, who are being held in lieu of $20,000 bail, face up to seven years in prison if convicted.
Sixteen-month-old Ice Swinton weighed only 10 pounds, looked like a 2- or 3-month-old and was half the normal weight of a child her age when authorities discovered her close to death last November.
EMS workers rushed Ice to from her Queens home to Long Island Jewish Hospital, where doctors diagnosed her with developmental problems, a distended abdomen, fractured bones, a vitamin deficiency called rickets and a lung disorder — all caused by malnutrition, authorities said.
The Swintons, who say they approach veganism as a religion, fed the child a diet of ‘ground nuts, fresh-squeezed fruit juices, herbal tea, beans, cod liver oil and flax seed oil,’ a complaint said.
Even when doctors told the couple their baby was on the brink of death in November, both parents insisted ‘there was nothing wrong’ and were resistant to treatment, the complaint said [my emphasis]
The absolute arrogance of these “health” freaks! Bottom line? This mother allowed her extremist views to trump the biological insistence of her own body — and her hubby helped her do it!
Yield: One near-dead kid.
Here’s a newsflash, honey: Your breasts were heavy with milk for a reason. And those leaky nipples of yours? Signals to drop them into your baby’s mouth.
Nuts, indeed.
[update: thanks to Edward Boyd for catching the omission]
Jeff,
Not that it makes it a whole lot better, but I think that the kid has survived.
Umm…. these people are militant vegans, they won’t even feed their daughter her mother’s own milk, but COD LIVER OIL is okay??
The child has survived, but there will almost certainly be permanent damage.
I’m generally against the death penalty, but these parent should be shot. The arrogance and utter stupidity of these people is beyond belief and that poor kid is going to have to pay the price.
Myria
This is just a unique twist on an old tragedy.
If these people weren’t using dietary abuse to torture their helpless child–they’d have been beating her, putting cigarettes out on her, or abusing her infantile mind.
I have the cure for people like these–unfortunately, it’s against the law.
More’s the pity, Tiger Lily.
The fact is, if these parents gave their child cod liver oil, then they are not vegans, since veganism omits all foods of animal origin, not counting mother’s milk–a diet which, to say the least, has not been proven any less healthy than the typical American fast food diet. The Swintons are crackpots, and by no means representative of all “vegans” (as much as some might wish to imply otherwise, for their own peculiar reasons), just as the Columbine killers don’t represent all gun owners. Though I’d be interested to see studies of parents (including the good, patriotic, red-blooded steak-eating flag-waving Americans to whom Fox News so cycnically panders) who stuff their children with so much junk that they get fat and wheezy and suffer any number of maladies, are made fun of, can’t get a date, hate themselves, burden our health care system and eventually die of massive heart attacks. (Also, it’s a misnomer to label the Swintons “health food freaks,” since it’s apparent, given their child’s condition, and the avowed “religious” component, that “health” wasn’t exactly their goal here.
Don’t blame the messenger, Mr. Veggie. The Swintons defined themselves as vegans, not FOXNews. How exactly FOX is pandering to flag wavers by grabbing something off the AP wire, I have no idea—though I’ll concede that the blood of those they reach is likely red (as opposed to, say, blue).
What the “typical American fast food diet” has to do with the actions of these avowed vegans, I have no idea. The “typical American” parent, after all, does not (to my knowledge, at least) stuff her newborn with McNuggets and deep-fried apple pie.
As for the label “health” freaks (I didn’t write “health food freaks,” did I?), I put the word <i>health</i> in scare quotes because I, too, question how healthy this practice is. Nevertheless, it’s disingenuous of you to point out the “religious” aspect of the Swinton’s veganism to distance it from the health angle that likely made it into a religion for them in the first place.
Unless you believe they’re into worshipping arugala for its own sake, say…
FOXNews panders to flag wavers by creating bogeymen out of isolated nutcases who are perceived to represent some dark left-wing conspiracy–you know, subversives: Marin County hot-tubbers, vegetarians, tree-lovers, in short, anyone else who isn’t likely to vote Republican. The fact that FOX grabbed this story off the AP wire and not some other story (and that you chose to reprint it) is precisely the point: there’s an agenda here, a selectivity, and really, it’s disingenuous of YOU to salivate over this single case (in an attempt, I assume, to make a larger point about the “vegan culture”–though again, the Swintons are not actual vegans) while millions of parents, some of whom voted Bush, are stuffing their children with Big Macs. If your point is to tar all vegans as fanatics (and de facto terrorist sympathizers), fine. But if your point is to question the wisdom of the vegan diet (albeit it in its most corrupt and twisted form), then it’s only fair to point out that one of the biggest health risks to children today is obesity from the typical fast food diet (not to mention asthma from poor air quality, but that’s another story). As for the “religious” angle, my guess is that that has more to do with some notion of animal sanctity and spirituality rather than “health.” In any case, we’re talking about a couple of lunatics here, nothing more.
No. FOX ran one story (of the hundred or so they run every day— among which are the heavily Bush-lovin’ stories “Big Change for Fashion” and “FAA Still Failing”) on a single incidence of child abuse by zealots—and it is YOU, Mr. Veggie, who is extrapolating it out into some larger issue (while simultaneously performing the same rhetorical hatchet-job on FOXNews and its viewers that you claim they’re performing on vegans).
Had these folks been Christian Scientists, I’d have said much the same thing (and in fact I already <a href=”http://www.creatical.com/weblog/archives/00000425.shtmI”>have</a>
.
You write: “if your point is to question the wisdom of the vegan diet (albeit it in its most corrupt and twisted form), then it’s only fair to point out that one of the biggest health risks to children today is obesity from the typical fast food diet (not to mention asthma from poor air quality, but that’s another story).”
Well, if my point were to question the wisdom of the vegan diet that’s what I’d have done. Instead, my point was to hightlight a single instance of fanaticism. So you’re wrong to tell me that, should I wish to point out one instance of fanaticism, I must necessarily point out every other instance of fanaticism—all to meet some silly standard of fairness. I don’t buy into those kinds of equivalency arguments.
Animal sanctity and spirituality? Perhaps. But as you noted in your first post, that would give lie to the cod liver oil, wouldn’t it? No, I’m going with the “health” thing.
You write:
“Well, if my point were to question the wisdom of the vegan diet that’s what I’d have done. Instead, my point was to hightlight a single instance of fanaticism.”
Yes, a fanaticism that supports the broader thesis of this blog. Which is fine. But don’t expect critical readers to separate this story from the context in which it’s been reprinted. A story of vegan fanaticism takes on a different flavor in a blog such as this than it would, say, in a medical journal, or on a website dedicated to preventing child abuse. Context is everything (or almost), and so it would seem that in your mind there is some sort of linkage–not necessarily literal–between vegans, puppet-headed protesters, patchouli, liberals, Ted Rall, and, yes (with apologies to our friend Mr. Ashcroft), “those who would aid, harbor or give comfort to terrorists.” Of course, as a sensitive minority (I am a black vegan ex-ballplayer, after all), maybe I’m just imagining things.
You continue:
“So you’re wrong to tell me that, should I wish to point out one instance of fanaticism, I must necessarily point out every other instance of fanaticism—all to meet some silly standard of fairness. I don’t buy into those kinds of equivalency arguments.”
No. I said that if you were questioning the wisdom of the vegan diet (which, as you say, you weren’t), then it’s only fair to question the mainstream American diet–none of which has anything to do with fanaticism.
If by “a fanaticism that supports the broader thesis of this blog” you mean an aim toward personal responsibility and a reluctance in accepting canned arguments, fine. Otherwise I reject your premise. A “blog like this one” meaning what, exactly?
The linkage between veganism and anti-globalism—when I’ve pointed to such a linkage—is that often time so-called “organic” food purveyors benefit from an agitation against the sinister-sounding “genetically altered food.” But that has no bearing on this case, which is why I didn’t mention it. Nor did I mention puppets. Or patchouli. Or Ted Rall. Or Michael Moore (who clearly is no vegan—or, if he is, that’s one helluva lot of lentils he’s eatin’
.
As for the last point. I wasn’t, so I needn’t. On that we’re agreed.
I’d call this a “red meat” blog–sort of what Nixon’s Hardhat consituency was to the anti-war crowd, or what College Republicans are to drama students. The thesis, as I see it, is that globalization is the ultimate fulfillment of Manifest Destiny, and that anyone who opposes our imposition of unfettered free-market capitalism on the rest of the world (whether they want it or not) is, well, un-American. Now, as many anti-globalization protesters are anti-American (which certainly doesn’t make them un-American; it’s our privilege to oppose our government’s policies), and as there is often overlap in this movement with environmentalists, civil libertarians, conservationists, animal and human rights activists and other perceived enemies of Globalization, it makes sense that “blogs like this one” would select, perhaps even unconsciously, convenient symbols like the Swintons to hold up to opprobrium, in order to smear, by association, whole movements (veganism=organic farmers=anti-genetically modified food=subversive=Greenpeace=socialist=terror sympathizer), reducing them to unbathed, fanatical masses who, while not starving their babies with a flaxseed oil diet or matting their hair with beeswax, would dare stand in the way of one’s Utopian vision of a world run and owned by benevolent nationless corporations. That’s obviously a broad way to put it, but maybe that’s what it boils down to.
As for “individual rights”–well, that’s a tricky phrase. Just today I was listening as a syndicated right-wing talk show host bemoaned election year Republican concessions on such things as increasing federal funding to help the elderly pay for prescription drugs. (Funny, isn’t it, when politicians have to betray their own platform to get re-elected?) Which makes me wonder: under the banner of “personal responsibility,” would these old folks, say the abled-bodied ones, be required to go out and get jobs, make themselves useful to the marketplace, because that’s the American Way?
(As for the “arrogance” of the Swintons–well, they’re obviously crazy. Can crazy people rightly be called arrogant?)
There’s your problem, then. Among other things, my criticisms of those who are “anti-American” (but not un-American) on particular issues are confined to those issues. To look for a grand narrative forces you to fill in the blanks with all sorts of assumptions that may prove false once your narrative hits a snag. I believe (with Fukuyama) that liberal democracy and capitalism are the [current] pinnacles of political expression. Unfettered markets, however, don’t exist. And anyway, I’m a strong supporter of national sovereignty (a check on any “Utopian vision of a world run and owned by benevolent nationless corporations”).
Among other problems with your assessment of this blog is that you insist on lumping it in with “right-wing” or “Republican” ideologies. But as you rightly recognize, many of the issues I write about here overlap—and so, while I tend to believe more in the natural checks and balances of free markets over the bureaucratic checks designed by politicians, such economic beliefs do not (as you seem to believe) lead inexorably to “right-wing” social beliefs (though as a general rule I’m eager for the Federal Govt. to stay out of our business whenever possible). Let’s see: I’m pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-biotech research. I’m an outspoken critic of the war on drugs. I’m also pro-death penalty, anti-affirmative action, and against nanny-statism in all its forms. In short, I pay attention to issues, not parties.
Your last example (the old couple) is a red herring. Hopefully, these able-bodied elderly folks you invoke would have retirement savings to fall back on, but if not, social security benefits are there to help them along. That social security payouts may prove insufficient—well, unfortunately the government decided at some point that <b>it</b> was better suited to manage people’s money than the people themselves were, so we are where we are. Your solution? More government. My solution? More personal (private) responsibility.
Should there be a social safety net? Of course. But prescription drug prices are as high as they are because of counterproductive regulatory practices by the FDA, for instance—not because of some outrageous drug company profit margin. [See <a href=”http://nl9.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_hidethis=yes&p_product=UW&p_theme=uw&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=20020422020628&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(“20020422020628”)&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no”>Mortimer Zuckerman’s editorial</a> in <i>U.S. News and World Report</i> of a few weeks back].
The question is, can national sovereignty (as we know it) and globalization co-exist? Le Pen and Buchanan don’t think so. We shall see….
Sure they can. And in fact, they strike a nice balance, I think.
Buchanan should be wearing a puppet on his head…
I just wanted to clear up one thing. You write, “and so, while I tend to believe more in the natural checks and balances of free markets over the bureaucratic checks designed by politicians, such economic beliefs do not (as you seem to believe) lead inexorably to “right-wing” social beliefs (though as a general rule I’m eager for the Federal Govt. to stay out of our business whenever possible).” I never said or thought that your economic beliefs lead inexorably to “right-wing” social beliefs. Indeed, to be truly a laissez-faire unseen-hand less-government individual-rights champion, all that social conservatism stuff has to go out the window. The two philosophies are incompatible. This is why the Repubs are splintered, and I imagine that they’ll break off someday into two distinct camps. Personally, I’m all for government staying out of my life as much as possible; everyone’s for that. (Indeed, it was the 60s Left that really brought that anti-government stuff to the fore, and establishment conservatives who opposed their cries for personal liberties.) But I do rely on government–as we all do– to make sure the building I’m in doesn’t collapse, that the elevators work, that the packaged food I buy is labeled with the ingredients, and that industries can’t poison me with their waste. This, to me, is government doing exactly what it’s supposed to do: protecting its citizens.
As for the anti-globalizationists, many people have real, legitimate concerns about where this movement to a “one world” economy is leading. For sheer aesthetic reasons it’s upsetting to contemplate a worldwide proliferation of Starbucks and McDonald’s (not for you, I know), but the people in the streets (and it’s not just anarchists and vandals out there) are worried about much more than that. They’re worried about their jobs, their culture, their environment, their health, their democracy, their individualism. Conservatives complain about the government being involved in every aspect of our lives, but corporations have an even greater claim on our privacy, and their control over our lives is increasing all the time; and as companies merge, and power is condensed into fewer and fewer hands, we’ll find ourselves reduced to what the ultracapitalists want us to be, and what many of us already are: blithe, docile, unquestioning consumers. Don’t be surprised if someday soon, the very conservatives who decry government controls and the shackling of business will be marching in lockstep with puppetheads, in a battle to overthrow the corporate stranglehold on their lives and reclaim that most precious and TRULY AMERICAN value, their personal sovereignty.
If the people in the streets are really worried about such things, it makes sense (to me, maybe not to you) that these people should do some research before they began arguing their positions—which more often than not are totally at odds with independent economic research. Paranoid conspiracy tales about huge multinationals turning the entire world’s population into docile consumer vessels is nonsense, and shows a fundamental distrust for humanity and a soft bigotry against those poor benighted unwashed who just can’t see how they’re being manipulated by powerful corporate hegemons bent on enslaving them on moon colonies.
Luckily, folks with a more refined sense of aesthetics like yourself (would you feel better if McDonald’s went with a kind of antique faux finish on its building facade?) are out there fighting the good fight, making sure cheap, easily-prepared food and a plethora of employment opportunities don’t show up in the French countryside or on the streetcorners of Prague. Doesn’t matter to you what the folks there want (if people were not buying coffee, Starbucks would shut down, no?) What matters is what <i>you</i> think they should want.
Tell me. Who’s the proscriptive hegemon? Those who wish to compete in the marketplace, or those who would shut down competition for fear something they don’t like might succeed in spite of their aesthetic snobbery?
What’s so disturbing about your view is that it assumes a totally false moral highground: the idea that free market people somehow <b>don’t</b> have “real” concerns about liberty or pollution or health care, etc., is absurd. They just happen to think that healthy, clean, free countries are the product of strong economies, not of some micro-managing centralized regulatory structure with a fetish for taxation.
Listen: Here’s the <a href=”http://www.nber.org/info.html”>hard science.</a> Do with it what you will.
And take a look at the “greenlining” article summary from <i>Foreign Policy</i> (above).
Okay. Put down your flag, take a breath. You write:
“If the people in the streets are really worried about such things, it makes sense (to me, maybe not to you) that these people should do some research before they began arguing their positions—which more often than not are totally at odds with independent economic research.”
So what you’re saying is, YOU have all the facts, and the tens of thousands of people marching in the streets, most of whom aren’t wearing puppets or breaking windows, are ignorant, uninformed, misguided, paranoid–all because they don’t share your superior, scientifically-grounded vision of a happy One World Order. That makes them scum, left wing hoodlums, commie unionists, etc. Well, here’s news: any movement that seeks to dominate the world will run into a few bumps along the way. You can’t expect everyone to fall obediently into line.
You continue:
“Paranoid conspiracy tales about huge multinationals turning the entire world’s population into docile consumer vessels is nonsense”
If you say so….
“and shows a fundamental distrust for humanity”
Priceless. YOU’RE the one who distrusts the humanity of the savages marching in the streets, while THEY distrust the “humanity” (I know, they’re crazy) of corporate titans and power-hungry politicians. But what can you do?
“and a soft bigotry against those poor benighted unwashed who just can’t see how they’re being manipulated by powerful corporate hegemons bent on enslaving them on moon colonies.”
Old rhetorical trick–accusing the other side of condescending to the ignorant masses by presuming to speak for them. News: the people in the streets are speaking for THEMSELVES. They live on this planet too. And this planet doesn’t belong to you or Monsanto, as much as you would have it otherwise. So negotiate.
“Luckily, folks with a more refined sense of aesthetics like yourself (would you feel better if McDonald’s went with a kind of antique faux finish on its building facade?) are out there fighting the good fight”
Nothing refined about my aesthetic sense. It’s just personal taste. And it’s certainly no reason to stop the friendly McDonald’s juggernaut, either. I’ll leave that to rural Frenchmen with crowbars.
“making sure cheap, easily-prepared food and a plethora of employment opportunities don’t show up in the French countryside or on the streetcorners of Prague.”
Right. Wouldn’t want to deny those Europeans the plethora of EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES afforded by McDonald’s. You got me there.
“Doesn’t matter to you what the folks there want (if people were not buying coffee, Starbucks would shut down, no?) What matters is what you think they should want.”
Hey, they’re the ones marching, not me. The Europeans are marching. The Europeans are tearing down McDonalds. Where are the pro-McDonald’s demonstrators? Why aren’t you in France with the local French globalizationists chaining yourself to a Golden Arch?
“Tell me. Who’s the proscriptive hegemon?Those who wish to compete in the marketplace, or those who would shut down competition for fear something they don’t like might succeed in spite of their aesthetic snobbery?”
The hegemons are people like you and our George W. Bush, who want to “spread the message of freedom” (i.e., unfettered free-market capitalism) to the four corners of the world, come hell or high water. How very altruistic of you. Trouble is, some people don’t want to live YOUR way, even though you’re convinced that your way is the best way, the ONLY way, for EVERYONE (you have the science to prove it), regardless of culture, history, philosophy, personal politics, etc. YOU’RE the one who wishes to push something, export it, and then you can’t understand why the people in those other lands would take to THEIR streets and dare to get in your way. But why is this? Why can’t these people see that American-style capitalism is the ONLY WAY???
“What’s so disturbing about your view is that it assumes a totally false moral highground: the idea that free market people somehow don’t have “real” concerns about liberty or pollution or health care, etc., is absurd. They just happen to think that healthy, clean, free countries are the product of strong economies, not of some micro-managing centralized regulatory structure with a fetish for taxation. “
That’s fine. The problem is that they are insisting on imposing this belief (much like Christian missionaries) on those who might not want to live that way. Of course, capitalism constantly needs new markets in order to survive. It’s imperialistic by nature. Call it a righteous imperialism, but imperialism it is. (Imperialism: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.) Now, maybe it really IS the best thing for everyone, and if that’s the case, it’ll eventually prevail. But you can’t shove it down people’s throats. Some people in Europe are happy with their social democracies, their welfare states. You can hate it all you want, but how they run their lives is their business, not yours.
Put down my flag? Yeah, that’s a useful beginning.
Nobody has all the facts. But the facts I cite are based on non-partisan scientific research. The facts you cite…uh, what are they again? Lots of claims, certainly, but where’s the beef–er, lentils?
Just because tens of thousands march in the street doesn’t make them right. The majority of the “international community” supports exploding Arabs and blood libels and calls the U.S. and Israel racist war criminals. Doesn’t make ‘em right. Liberal democracy is the exception in this world, not the rule.
I don’t distrust humanity. I trust them to speak with their choices. You want to proscribe their choices for them. No “old rhetorical trick” here.
You write “News: the people in the streets are speaking for THEMSELVES. They live on this planet too. And this planet doesn’t belong to you or Monsanto, as much as you would have it otherwise. So negotiate.” Yes, it does belong to all of us. I never said those people couldn’t speak for themselves (though I’d prefer they’d do some research first)—but criticizing them for what they say is MY RIGHT. And I’m speaking for ME, not Monsanto. Though your crack about frenchman with crowbars about nails the level of “discussion” you’ll countenance before you just say “fuck all this talk, let’s dismantle some shit.”
And a job at McDonalds might be beneath you, but some people might be happy to have it.
You write, “The Europeans are marching. The Europeans are tearing down McDonalds. Where are the pro-McDonald’s demonstrators? Why aren’t you in France with the local French globalizationists chaining yourself to a Golden Arch?”
I don’t need to be in France chained to a golden arch, nor marching around in the streets, cozying up to pro-Palestinian anti-semites, to argue my point. If McDonalds doesn’t sell burgers and fries, it shuts down. If it sells enough, it stay viable. Tearing it down is the equivalent of closing off the debate.
Hey, no one HAS to live in freedom, just like no one HAS to eat at McDonalds. But now “spreading the word” is bad? Why?
“YOU’RE the one who wishes to push something, export it,” you write, “and then you can’t understand why the people in those other lands would take to THEIR streets and dare to get in your way. But why is this? Why can’t these people see that American-style capitalism is the ONLY WAY???” Hey, if you think the way not to eat a burger is to tear down the burger joint rather than simply to keep your mouth closed, I can’t help you—though I’d hope somebody’d stop you, ‘cause your damaging private property. But I will point out that you seem to conflate “export” with “force”—as if the U.S. is somehow putting its boot down on people’s throats and pouring decaf lattes down their gullets. I never said American-style capitalism is the “only” way to do anything. But that doesn’t mean I can’t think its a better way to do things than, say, communism, or totatitarianism, or socialism. Quite different than forcing it on people. But then, that’s what I do, isn’t it: bludgeon people with my “science.”
Bottom line is, you don’t want the U.S. “forcing” its system on other nations ( I say it doesn’t—it provides alternatives). Yet you do want a clean planet, a well-fed and healthy world populace, peace, harmony, etc. And I respond with my insidious “science” that, the way to achieve these things—at least such has been the case historically—is though wealth, growth, progress, industry. Not taxation, isolation, etc.
Jeff, aren’t you violating a very basic rule about not getting in a battle of wits with someone who’s unarmed?