I wouldn't go so far as to say "far more" but "more" is definitely reasonable. My point is simply this: when a person picks a Vice President, he is saying, "If I'm on my deathbed, I will choose this person over every other person in the world to hand the keys over to."
Using history as a guide, a Vice Presidential pick is almost always more about providing balance to a ticket and improving election chances, usually by bringing in a swing state.
Palin was an unconventional choice, but it's looking more and more to have been a good one. McCain's problem is he isn't conservative enough for a lot of Republicans. With the Palin pick, he in one swoop locked up the conservatives in the party, leaving him free to move to the middle, AND more significantly, led the Obama camp to directing a huge effort at going after Palin rather than McCain. You don't really win Presidential campaigns by going after the VP candidate.
I think it's time for the McCain campaign to shut the fuck up about experience.
The problem with this suggestion is that the Obama camp, glass house and all, has been hammering the Palin pick on the basis of experience. Heartbeat away and all that.
All that really says to me is that governors are better than senators at getting elected (not exactly a surprising fact).
Probably has something to do with the fact that governors races are typically competitive while Senator races much less so. They also tend to be less partisan once in office than legislators due to the respective nature of the positions.
Er, Scudsucker, just for the record, I'm not a big McCain fan. He's not conservative enough for me;-). But he'll do when the choice is him or the Manchurian Candidate Obama.
If you think the manager of a local Burger King can suddenly be a top executive at a Fortune 100 company because she has "management experience", sure. This "she has more experience" line is a phenomenally stupid Republican talking point, but then I repeat myself.
No troll, you don't repeat yourself. No one is saying her experience as mayor qualifies her for the Vice Presidency any more than Obama's experience as a State senator qualifies him for the Presidency. You seem to think it does. Good for you, good luck with that because you are going to need it with your paper thin stealth-communist candidate. Can't wait until some more dirt about Obama's close friendship with that unrepentant piece of shit terrorist Bill Ayers comes out.
If you think being a mayor of a town of 8,000 is more significant than being a state senator for the 5th largest state and the 3rd largest city in the nation, you really need to see a doctor about your broken sense of proportion.
Yeah, I think it's more important. For one, it's more of a significant challenge to get elected, especially given the fact that Obama ran essentially uncontested because he had all his Democratic rivals eliminated from the ballot. Additionally, when you have Obama voting "present" 133 times rather than "Yes" or "no" and have the only thing he worked real hard on was government kickbacks to his developer buddies like Rezko, I'm not really sure that his "experience" is much to crow about, even if it's in the "5th largest state" and "3rd largest city" in the nation...Obama was just a small corrupt cog in a big corrupt machine, and never showed any leadership or demonstrated any commitment to reform. A small fish in a big ocean is still just a small fish. A mayor, at least, has to demonstrate some leadership to be effective.
All five of them. The rest of her liberal to moderate, pro-choice supporters will find it quite condescending that McCain thinks that they'll vote for him just because he has a vagina on the ticket.
Right. Which is why James Carville was wearing Puma sneakers during the convention. You know, because he can afford a $6,000 suit, but can only afford $30 sneakers.
I'm not going to call either one of them seasoned politicians, but don't you think that it might be good for the person next in line to be President be... well... ready to be President? Especially when the President is an older gentleman?
I would say it's far more important for the President to be ready to be President than the person next in line to be President.
As for qualifications, executive experience is far more useful than legislative experience. This is one of the reasons why governors have tended to outperform senators in Presidential elections.
Really what it boils down to, strictly Palin vs Obama, is which one is more in line with your core principals. Arguing whether or not 3 years in the Senate vs 2 years as Governor is more significant is splitting hairs.
You are incorrect. Being primarily a figurehead in a town of 8000 people is far different than being in the Senate of one of the largest states in the country.
Of course it's different. One is executive and one isn't. But both are small time (mayor vs state senate). And Obama was given his state Senate seat (or, more accurately, he won it by completely subverting the democratic process by getting all of his Democrat primary opponents thrown off the ballot, including his mentor the incumbent).
There is a familiarity that is developed with crafting and moving legislation, building support, representing a constituency - all things that Palin would have only learned a short while ago.
Funny. Obama was gifted almost all of his legislation that has his name on it in the state senate, after OTHER people had crafted it, moved it, built support...Obama came in for the big win, because he was being groomed. Good for him, nothing wrong with that, but don't make it into more than it really is.
He doesn't have a whole lot of experience. Either does Palin. But then, Palin isn't running for the top spot.
I'm not offended if you're trying - hard- to justify the choice.
It's an easy choice to justify. It solidifies the conservative base support of McCain, which was lacking, and it cleaves off a chunk of Hillary voters who are upset at Obama for not picking Hillary as his running mate.
But use arguments that make sense, not ones that expose your ignorance.
Ok, if you're going to make an allegation like that, please back it up with facts. Obama has 3 years in the US Senate...and he's been running for President for 2 of those years. Experience isn't Obama's strong point, and only a delusional person would think it is.
Clarence Thomas, as everyone not blinded by Republican loyalty knows, isn't a "Constitutional" justice. He's a rightwing pawn.
Statements like this is why you're a commie stooge, Doc. Clarence Thomas has been on the side of individual rights far more often than Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, or Breyer.
Kelo vs Connecticut...who sided with government power and who sided with individual property rights?
Heller vs DC...who sided with government police power and who sided with an individual's right to self defense?
Raich vs US...who sided with personal growth and consumption of marijuana and who sided with the government's prosecution of such under the Commerce Clause?
As for the expectation of privacy when crossing the border, there has NEVER been an implied or explicit right. The US government has always maintained the power to search your belongings on entry. Your allegation that Thomas is somehow throwing out the Constitution with this decision illustrates your basic ignorance on the Constitution, Constitutional law, and Clarence Thomas...in other words, par for the course for you.
Frankly I don't see this pick as shoring up the McCain ticket much except in terms of solidifying his base.
Which McCain needed to do. And not all of the women supporting Hillary were pro-life. A lot just wanted to see a woman break through. And some of them will go to McCain now. Remember, it doesn't have to be a whole lot to potentially swing elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia.
The Coburn-Obama Transparency Bill is your idea of a major bill?
Granted, it's a nice bill, but it's hardly a major one.
And, if Obama's career in the Illinois Senate is any indication, he was probably gifted the bill after it had already cleared committee and everyone else had already done the heavy lifting. This was sort of his modus operandi in Illinous.
Well, you shouldn't be surprised. Obama has always run as a reformer, but he has absolutely no reform accomplishments to date, either as a stat Senator or a US Senator. He doesn't have a long record, but judging by the record, he is not going to rock any boats if it will affect his fund raising. He will, however, be staunchly pro-abortion and staunchly pro-gun control. This you can count on.
Good luck with that. Hate to break it to you, but Obama isn't going to win.
Oh yeah, and another thing, Obama and McCain aren't all that different with respect to energy policy. The big difference is McCain doesn't want to impose a windfall tax on the oil companies in order to give "tax cuts" to the lowest earning third of US workers. I put "tax cuts" in quotes because of course, the lowest earning third of US workers are net recipients of Federal money and don't really have a net tax load.
You've got a lot of forces in play here and it's a little bit unfair to the fundamentalists to blame them for all of them.
Humans are maturing sexually at younger and younger ages than the generations before them. Chalk it up to GM foods, better foods, too much fat in the diet, soy, or whatever, but in Germany they expect the average to be 10 or 11 years of age from the 12.2 it was in 1992. In 1860 it was 16.6 years of age, in 1920 it was 14.6 years of age.
So really, we are seeing something "new under the sun".
In addition, there has been a popular culture assault with respect to the sexualization of children.
The solution to teen pregnancy isn't abortion on demand nor is it really religion in the class room. But calling fundamentalists part of the problem is disingenuous. They just aren't a realistic part of the solution because they don't represent a large enough percentage of the population to affect the statistical wave even if their tactics were effective at reducing unwanted teen pregnancy.
This is Elizabeth Hasselbeck with 18 months of real political experience - mind you, in one of the least populous states in the country.
Which is about 12 months more experience than Obama had when he started running for President. He had a whole 133 days in the US Senate under his belt. His State Senator days are hardly more significant than Palin's mayorial days, especially given the fact that he basically had the seat handed to him (same as his US Senate seat in fact).
Funny, I must have missed that part. I remember the part where he said 'we must find a way to protect your guns while we keep AK-47's off of the streets' and 'gun control means significantly different things from (some rural location) to (some metropolitan location)'. Both of those are approximate paraphrases, not exact quotes.
Well, the problem with Obama's stance is that AK-47's are not statistically significant with respect to violent crime. In fact, there are no "assault weapons" that are. So banning AK-47s will do nothing to functionally reduce crime, so Obama's assertion that he's doing it to reduce crime is a bald faced lie. He's doing it because he is, and always has been, a front and center believer in the gun control agenda.
And? Obama had a close, very close, decades long relationship with Rezko, who was convicted of bribing politicians just like Obama. And, along the way, Obama made sure Rezko housing developments got plenty of state and Federal money. ALL politicians get money from all sorts of dubious characters. The question is does that influence them when it comes to appropriations time. With Obama, the answer is a pretty unequivocal yes.
The idea that programming is mere grunt work or that programmers can be commoditized is one reason why so many software projects and products are utter crap.
Also, with the advent of server virtualization and data center consolidation and aggregation, those system engineer jobs may not be so safe and plentiful onshore in a few years, especially when so much administration can be done remotely. Maybe the CAT5E cable monkeys can unionize to protect their wages.
The parent is correct that there is a selection bias in our detection methods of planets that favours systems with gas giants close to the sun. However, this has nothing to do with the conclusions of the article.
Sure it does. Right now we can ONLY reliably spot "planets" in systems with larger than Jupiter gas giants in relatively close orbits to their parent star. Given that, we have no way of identifying probability of inward migration of gas giants, and we have no idea over what timescales this occurs. Fast type III migration would imply no formation of earth-type planets, ever (or, more accurately, they would be kicked out early in the system evolution), but slower migration (over a billion or more years) would still allow for quite a bit of time to develop an earth type biosphere.
The bottom line is the US has a problem with black violent crime, the victims of which are predominately also black.
When a black male is 7 times more likely to commit a homicide than his white peer (and 7 times more likely to be a homicide victim), the problem isn't racist attitudes or a top down approach to police enforcement, it's endemic violence within the black community.
Another poster quoted Chris Rock. I'll do the same. You don't see people getting in brawls, getting stabbed, or getting shot at the CMT awards.
You seem to be misunderstanding what "labor scarcity" means. From the Spanish perspective, there was no scarcity. There was a huge number of potential laborers in Africa and Mexico who just needed to be put to productive (for the Spanish) work. As long as slaves could be obtained cheaply (because of abundance), there was no incentive for the Spanish to improve working conditions or hire relatively expensive Europeans.
It's certainly possible that I misunderstand. But, from what I understand, you can have lots of potential laborers, but still have labor scarcity, especially for undesirable jobs. In a liberal free market system, the typical response is to raise wages for the jobs, or innovate your way out of the problems caused by the scarcity of labor (mechanization, for example). Labor scarcity implies a market for laborers in which the laborers get to exercise a choice other than "work or die (or at least be beaten)".
However, most of the world still does not live under a liberal free market system. And in despotic systems (and democratic systems can be despotic towards those on the losing side of the vote) when you have a dirty job that you don't pay a "fair market rate" for, history says you will force the powerless or less powerful to do the job at whatever rate you deem acceptable.
Given your American slave example, the treatment of American slaves may have been better than their Caribean counter parts, but it was substantially worse than their poor, but free counterparts working tenant farms, if for no other reason than the laborer had no ability to control what his labor was used for or his compensation paid.
Hush, my baby. Baby, don't you cry. Momma's gonna make all of your nightmares come true. Momma's gonna put all of her fears into you. Momma's gonna keep you right here under her wing. She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing. Momma's gonna keep Baby cozy and warm.
Hush, my baby. Baby, don't you cry. Momma's gonna check out all your girlfriends for you. Momma won't let anyone dirty get through. Momma's gonna wait up until you get in. Momma will always find out where you've been. Momma's gonna keep Baby healthy and clean.
Replace Momma with the nanny state, and you get the general idea. You are all children, unfit to make your own decisions about how you are going to live your own life.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't go so far as to say "far more" but "more" is definitely reasonable. My point is simply this: when a person picks a Vice President, he is saying, "If I'm on my deathbed, I will choose this person over every other person in the world to hand the keys over to."
Using history as a guide, a Vice Presidential pick is almost always more about providing balance to a ticket and improving election chances, usually by bringing in a swing state.
Palin was an unconventional choice, but it's looking more and more to have been a good one. McCain's problem is he isn't conservative enough for a lot of Republicans. With the Palin pick, he in one swoop locked up the conservatives in the party, leaving him free to move to the middle, AND more significantly, led the Obama camp to directing a huge effort at going after Palin rather than McCain. You don't really win Presidential campaigns by going after the VP candidate.
I think it's time for the McCain campaign to shut the fuck up about experience.
The problem with this suggestion is that the Obama camp, glass house and all, has been hammering the Palin pick on the basis of experience. Heartbeat away and all that.
All that really says to me is that governors are better than senators at getting elected (not exactly a surprising fact).
Probably has something to do with the fact that governors races are typically competitive while Senator races much less so. They also tend to be less partisan once in office than legislators due to the respective nature of the positions.
Er, Scudsucker, just for the record, I'm not a big McCain fan. He's not conservative enough for me ;-). But he'll do when the choice is him or the Manchurian Candidate Obama.
If you think the manager of a local Burger King can suddenly be a top executive at a Fortune 100 company because she has "management experience", sure. This "she has more experience" line is a phenomenally stupid Republican talking point, but then I repeat myself.
No troll, you don't repeat yourself. No one is saying her experience as mayor qualifies her for the Vice Presidency any more than Obama's experience as a State senator qualifies him for the Presidency. You seem to think it does. Good for you, good luck with that because you are going to need it with your paper thin stealth-communist candidate. Can't wait until some more dirt about Obama's close friendship with that unrepentant piece of shit terrorist Bill Ayers comes out.
If you think being a mayor of a town of 8,000 is more significant than being a state senator for the 5th largest state and the 3rd largest city in the nation, you really need to see a doctor about your broken sense of proportion.
Yeah, I think it's more important. For one, it's more of a significant challenge to get elected, especially given the fact that Obama ran essentially uncontested because he had all his Democratic rivals eliminated from the ballot. Additionally, when you have Obama voting "present" 133 times rather than "Yes" or "no" and have the only thing he worked real hard on was government kickbacks to his developer buddies like Rezko, I'm not really sure that his "experience" is much to crow about, even if it's in the "5th largest state" and "3rd largest city" in the nation...Obama was just a small corrupt cog in a big corrupt machine, and never showed any leadership or demonstrated any commitment to reform. A small fish in a big ocean is still just a small fish. A mayor, at least, has to demonstrate some leadership to be effective.
All five of them. The rest of her liberal to moderate, pro-choice supporters will find it quite condescending that McCain thinks that they'll vote for him just because he has a vagina on the ticket.
Right. Which is why James Carville was wearing Puma sneakers during the convention. You know, because he can afford a $6,000 suit, but can only afford $30 sneakers.
Party
Unity
My
Ass
I'm not going to call either one of them seasoned politicians, but don't you think that it might be good for the person next in line to be President be... well... ready to be President? Especially when the President is an older gentleman?
I would say it's far more important for the President to be ready to be President than the person next in line to be President.
As for qualifications, executive experience is far more useful than legislative experience. This is one of the reasons why governors have tended to outperform senators in Presidential elections.
Really what it boils down to, strictly Palin vs Obama, is which one is more in line with your core principals. Arguing whether or not 3 years in the Senate vs 2 years as Governor is more significant is splitting hairs.
You are incorrect. Being primarily a figurehead in a town of 8000 people is far different than being in the Senate of one of the largest states in the country.
Of course it's different. One is executive and one isn't. But both are small time (mayor vs state senate). And Obama was given his state Senate seat (or, more accurately, he won it by completely subverting the democratic process by getting all of his Democrat primary opponents thrown off the ballot, including his mentor the incumbent).
There is a familiarity that is developed with crafting and moving legislation, building support, representing a constituency - all things that Palin would have only learned a short while ago.
Funny. Obama was gifted almost all of his legislation that has his name on it in the state senate, after OTHER people had crafted it, moved it, built support...Obama came in for the big win, because he was being groomed. Good for him, nothing wrong with that, but don't make it into more than it really is.
He doesn't have a whole lot of experience. Either does Palin. But then, Palin isn't running for the top spot.
I'm not offended if you're trying - hard- to justify the choice.
It's an easy choice to justify. It solidifies the conservative base support of McCain, which was lacking, and it cleaves off a chunk of Hillary voters who are upset at Obama for not picking Hillary as his running mate.
But use arguments that make sense, not ones that expose your ignorance.
Ok, if you're going to make an allegation like that, please back it up with facts. Obama has 3 years in the US Senate...and he's been running for President for 2 of those years. Experience isn't Obama's strong point, and only a delusional person would think it is.
Clarence Thomas, as everyone not blinded by Republican loyalty knows, isn't a "Constitutional" justice. He's a rightwing pawn.
Statements like this is why you're a commie stooge, Doc. Clarence Thomas has been on the side of individual rights far more often than Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, or Breyer.
Kelo vs Connecticut...who sided with government power and who sided with individual property rights?
Heller vs DC...who sided with government police power and who sided with an individual's right to self defense?
Raich vs US...who sided with personal growth and consumption of marijuana and who sided with the government's prosecution of such under the Commerce Clause?
As for the expectation of privacy when crossing the border, there has NEVER been an implied or explicit right. The US government has always maintained the power to search your belongings on entry. Your allegation that Thomas is somehow throwing out the Constitution with this decision illustrates your basic ignorance on the Constitution, Constitutional law, and Clarence Thomas...in other words, par for the course for you.
What was that sound? Oh yeah, it was the sound of your golden boy Obama's chances going down the tubes.
Frankly I don't see this pick as shoring up the McCain ticket much except in terms of solidifying his base.
Which McCain needed to do. And not all of the women supporting Hillary were pro-life. A lot just wanted to see a woman break through. And some of them will go to McCain now. Remember, it doesn't have to be a whole lot to potentially swing elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia.
The Coburn-Obama Transparency Bill is your idea of a major bill?
Granted, it's a nice bill, but it's hardly a major one.
And, if Obama's career in the Illinois Senate is any indication, he was probably gifted the bill after it had already cleared committee and everyone else had already done the heavy lifting. This was sort of his modus operandi in Illinous.
Well, you shouldn't be surprised. Obama has always run as a reformer, but he has absolutely no reform accomplishments to date, either as a stat Senator or a US Senator. He doesn't have a long record, but judging by the record, he is not going to rock any boats if it will affect his fund raising. He will, however, be staunchly pro-abortion and staunchly pro-gun control. This you can count on.
Good luck with that. Hate to break it to you, but Obama isn't going to win.
Oh yeah, and another thing, Obama and McCain aren't all that different with respect to energy policy. The big difference is McCain doesn't want to impose a windfall tax on the oil companies in order to give "tax cuts" to the lowest earning third of US workers. I put "tax cuts" in quotes because of course, the lowest earning third of US workers are net recipients of Federal money and don't really have a net tax load.
You've got a lot of forces in play here and it's a little bit unfair to the fundamentalists to blame them for all of them.
Humans are maturing sexually at younger and younger ages than the generations before them. Chalk it up to GM foods, better foods, too much fat in the diet, soy, or whatever, but in Germany they expect the average to be 10 or 11 years of age from the 12.2 it was in 1992. In 1860 it was 16.6 years of age, in 1920 it was 14.6 years of age.
So really, we are seeing something "new under the sun".
In addition, there has been a popular culture assault with respect to the sexualization of children.
The solution to teen pregnancy isn't abortion on demand nor is it really religion in the class room. But calling fundamentalists part of the problem is disingenuous. They just aren't a realistic part of the solution because they don't represent a large enough percentage of the population to affect the statistical wave even if their tactics were effective at reducing unwanted teen pregnancy.
This is Elizabeth Hasselbeck with 18 months of real political experience - mind you, in one of the least populous states in the country.
Which is about 12 months more experience than Obama had when he started running for President. He had a whole 133 days in the US Senate under his belt. His State Senator days are hardly more significant than Palin's mayorial days, especially given the fact that he basically had the seat handed to him (same as his US Senate seat in fact).
Funny, I must have missed that part. I remember the part where he said 'we must find a way to protect your guns while we keep AK-47's off of the streets' and 'gun control means significantly different things from (some rural location) to (some metropolitan location)'. Both of those are approximate paraphrases, not exact quotes.
Well, the problem with Obama's stance is that AK-47's are not statistically significant with respect to violent crime. In fact, there are no "assault weapons" that are. So banning AK-47s will do nothing to functionally reduce crime, so Obama's assertion that he's doing it to reduce crime is a bald faced lie. He's doing it because he is, and always has been, a front and center believer in the gun control agenda.
And? Obama had a close, very close, decades long relationship with Rezko, who was convicted of bribing politicians just like Obama. And, along the way, Obama made sure Rezko housing developments got plenty of state and Federal money. ALL politicians get money from all sorts of dubious characters. The question is does that influence them when it comes to appropriations time. With Obama, the answer is a pretty unequivocal yes.
Do you honestly think that we should be teaching creationism in science class?
No, but I also think there's a lot more to good governance than the whole creationism debate which a lot of atheists seem to forget.
The idea that programming is mere grunt work or that programmers can be commoditized is one reason why so many software projects and products are utter crap.
Also, with the advent of server virtualization and data center consolidation and aggregation, those system engineer jobs may not be so safe and plentiful onshore in a few years, especially when so much administration can be done remotely. Maybe the CAT5E cable monkeys can unionize to protect their wages.
Don't forget to blame the Shrub for the eventual decay of the earth's orbit until it is consumed by the sun.
The parent is correct that there is a selection bias in our detection methods of planets that favours systems with gas giants close to the sun. However, this has nothing to do with the conclusions of the article.
Sure it does. Right now we can ONLY reliably spot "planets" in systems with larger than Jupiter gas giants in relatively close orbits to their parent star. Given that, we have no way of identifying probability of inward migration of gas giants, and we have no idea over what timescales this occurs. Fast type III migration would imply no formation of earth-type planets, ever (or, more accurately, they would be kicked out early in the system evolution), but slower migration (over a billion or more years) would still allow for quite a bit of time to develop an earth type biosphere.
Uh, the universe isn't infinite. Very large, yes, but very finite.
We'll see who's sky is falling in November.
Racist attitudes?
The bottom line is the US has a problem with black violent crime, the victims of which are predominately also black.
When a black male is 7 times more likely to commit a homicide than his white peer (and 7 times more likely to be a homicide victim), the problem isn't racist attitudes or a top down approach to police enforcement, it's endemic violence within the black community.
Another poster quoted Chris Rock. I'll do the same. You don't see people getting in brawls, getting stabbed, or getting shot at the CMT awards.
You seem to be misunderstanding what "labor scarcity" means. From the Spanish perspective, there was no scarcity. There was a huge number of potential laborers in Africa and Mexico who just needed to be put to productive (for the Spanish) work. As long as slaves could be obtained cheaply (because of abundance), there was no incentive for the Spanish to improve working conditions or hire relatively expensive Europeans.
It's certainly possible that I misunderstand. But, from what I understand, you can have lots of potential laborers, but still have labor scarcity, especially for undesirable jobs. In a liberal free market system, the typical response is to raise wages for the jobs, or innovate your way out of the problems caused by the scarcity of labor (mechanization, for example). Labor scarcity implies a market for laborers in which the laborers get to exercise a choice other than "work or die (or at least be beaten)".
However, most of the world still does not live under a liberal free market system. And in despotic systems (and democratic systems can be despotic towards those on the losing side of the vote) when you have a dirty job that you don't pay a "fair market rate" for, history says you will force the powerless or less powerful to do the job at whatever rate you deem acceptable.
Given your American slave example, the treatment of American slaves may have been better than their Caribean counter parts, but it was substantially worse than their poor, but free counterparts working tenant farms, if for no other reason than the laborer had no ability to control what his labor was used for or his compensation paid.
I didn't really think Kant or Godel would be appropriate here.
Hush, my baby. Baby, don't you cry.
Momma's gonna make all of your nightmares come true.
Momma's gonna put all of her fears into you.
Momma's gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Momma's gonna keep Baby cozy and warm.
Hush, my baby. Baby, don't you cry.
Momma's gonna check out all your girlfriends for you.
Momma won't let anyone dirty get through.
Momma's gonna wait up until you get in.
Momma will always find out where you've been.
Momma's gonna keep Baby healthy and clean.
Replace Momma with the nanny state, and you get the general idea. You are all children, unfit to make your own decisions about how you are going to live your own life.