Well, yes

It certainly seems true that Sheindlin’s pop-cultural status distracts liberals from politics they might otherwise find unpalatable. For instance, she applauds as “courageous” Bill Clinton’s 1996 welfare reforms on the grounds that “he disincentivised young girls from having children just because it was like getting a new pair of sneakers”, when recent analysis suggests that, in fact, the policy’s success was in reducing the number of beneficiaries – not poverty itself.

Reducing the number of beneficiaries is reducing the number of girls who have a kid like a new pair of sneakers, no?

3 thoughts on “Well, yes”

  1. “Her black-and-white worldview and her refusal to spare others’ feelings doesn’t sit easily with a society that has become more sensitive to unkindness.”

    Translation: “Argh! She upsets the snowflakes!”

  2. And it’s easy to see why:

    ““How do you put together in your brain a mother punishing a child by putting out a cigarette on his arm? A parent punishing a child for wetting their pants by making them sit in scalding water? Howdoyoudothat!

    “Do you say: ‘Well, I’m going to look at the childhood of the parent – maybe that’s all the parent knew?’ Not in my world. In my world, if that’s the way you know how to parent, you shouldn’t have any more children.””

    /applause

  3. FWIW, that wasn’t “Bill Clinton’s welfare reform”, it was passed by a Republican House & Senate & he signed it because Dick Morris told him he needed to in order to get reelected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *