Friday morning roundup

Let's talk about 'too much government intervention' for a second: in addition to the spectrum of reasonable positions on this matter, you have the two extremes, the idiots, and the hypocrites. I.e. you have the people that believe government should manage everything and those who believe that government should manage nothing; you have the people who say government should manage nothing, i.e. their medicare, and the people who say government should manage nothing (apart from women's wombs). I'm not sure where to place this horse$hit:

Massachusetts is the first state to add toothbrush time to the color-nap-snack-and-play routine of preschools, requiring that all children who eat a meal at day care, or attend for more than four hours, brush their teeth during class and be educated about oral health.

The regulations, which went into effect last week, are being praised by some parents and caregivers while causing a tempest in a toothbrush for others, according to schools and chat rooms.

“I don’t want someone’s hand in my child’s mouth,” said Sarah Brodsky, a teacher at First Path Day Care in Watertown and mother of 4-month-old Noah. “It’s a little too much” government intervention, Ms. Brodsky added.

“JG,” posting on Boston.com’s blog Moms Nation, agreed that the government might have overstepped its bounds: “We don’t need the state mandating every little thing in our lives. Let parents be parents,” adding, “The kids can’t even reach a sink.”

Now, my parents grew up in a police state. I grew up listening to their stories of having grown up in a police state. I wouldn't, for a minute, suggest there's no such thing as too much government intervention. But teaching kids to brush their teeth--in (state-funded) schools--is not the same as paying neighbor's to spy on each other and report their thoughts to the state. Right?

Maybe I'm just bitter because I wish someone had taught me to brush my teeth properly. It could have saved me a fortune in dental bills. But I'm not talking about the other reasons (logistical, hygienic, etc.) for which this might not be the best idea. I'm talking about how the public discourse on "government intervention" is losing touch with reality.

David Brooks touches on the outdated nature of the big government/small government debate.

Investing in Haiti's economy.

Samuel Pisar eloquently contemplates humanity in the face of tragedy, natural and man-made.

John Bowe's book on love looks interesting.

Not that I drive to the District if I can avoid it, but I welcome the no-quarters-needed trend.

We talked a bit over the weekend (well, blogged and commented) about sanctimommies, and Ernessa said something like she hasn't met a lot of actual sanctimommies, but the internet encourages that kind of thing. Perhaps. I do know moms who complain of sanctimommies (a friend of mine considers her sister-in-law as such). What I can say is that I've noticed that moms, like others, attack when they feel threatened. So I'm going to extend this already stretched metaphor to healthy eating, having blogged yesterday about nonjudgmental yoga and nonjudgmental eating. I'm all about not criticizing what other people eat, until (like RM) they start calling me a freak. It follows that if we must label parents weirdos based on the food choices they make on behalf of their kids, let it go to the ones that opt for the junk food. And there's nothing impossible or more expensive about mixing your own vinegar-based cleaning products.

But I will judge parents who overshelter their children and the schools that pander to them. That's just a travesty.

It's tempting to judge, as greedy, the landlords claiming ownership over a meteorite, thus keeping it out of the Smithsonian. But in the interest of intellectual honesty, I'd have to ask myself whether in a similar situation, the prospect of that much money wouldn't alter my own behavior.

I'd considered going to the farewell party but I was concerned it might be a zoo (no pun intended--really). It's also going to be very cold.