Does Your Toddler Hate Itchy Clothing and Recoil from Loud Noises?

Why is everything a "disorder" these days?

For most toddlers, tantrums and clumsiness are just a part of life, something they grow out of. Yet a burgeoning number of parents, like Pamela Trigg, are reporting that their children exhibit baffling, intense behaviors. Some overreact, recoiling from loud noises or refusing to wear itchy clothes. Others underreact, showing little reaction to pain or crashing their bodies into walls.

Wait, what? First of all, no one that I know of (adult or child) likes to wear "itchy clothes". So let's just make sure we're not confused here. There's no such thing as "itchy clothes disorder". That's called wanting to be comfortable. And "recoiling from loud noises" is a symptom as well? Are you serious? If you find that baffling, like this "burgeoning number of parents" do, you may need to consult a therapist - for yourself.

Apparently, I've been suffering from "itchy clothing disorder" AND "loud noise aversion disorder" all my life.

Sure, sometimes kids just overreact to stuff, and sometimes they're pushing limits. However, under this theory of "sensory processing disorder" there is a whole new world of stuff opening up.

Parents can invest in “sensory-friendly” products and attire, from weighted vests to chewable jewelry. They can fit their homes with sensory gyms (some parents have launched crowdfundingcampaigns for home therapy equipment). They can send their children to schools that cater to students’ sensory intolerances and allow them to move around, take breaks and wear headphones. Public libraries host sensory storytimes, theaters stage quiet performances with modified lighting, museums conduct out-of-hours tours with cool-down rooms. Even hair salons are beginning to offer “sensory friendly” cuts.

Sensory friendly attire? Is that like the t-shirts that don't have the little tags in the back? Weighted vests? Are you kidding me? I would never put a weighted vest on a toddler. That sounds ridiculous, and it's probably not super-safe.

But quiet rooms actually sound nice. Maybe we could all benefit from some quiet rooms from time to time. I don't mean to discount actual disorders, but I think we're getting a little far afield here...

(via Althouse)

The Hobby Lobby Case and Jeffrey Toobin Continuing His Hackery

UPDATED IN BOLD TO GET A LITTLE MORE TECHNICAL/LEGALISTIC

Awhile back, I wrote a post called "Jeffrey Toobin Is a Hack". I was reminded of this when Ann Althouse wrote a post today on a similar topic: Toobin's Hackery. Althouse calls his piece on the Hobby Lobby Oral arguments "embarrassingly bad" I commend it to you only to demonstrate that my opinion of Toobin's hackery abounds all over the internet.

Anyway, you don't come here to get bad analysis, so if you want some actual, good analysis of the Hobby Lobby case, I am going to send you over to SCOTUSblog. 

My short and sweet thought is that an employer's failing to pay for an employee's preferred form of birth control is not a denial of that employee's ability to use that form of birth control. The employer not preventing the employee from using the birth control, the employer is simply saying they won't pay for it.

And that's fine.

But now you have a law (Obamacare) that says employers have to provide basically every type of birth control. And to be really technical about it, the actual law doesn't say that. HHS is issuing regulations that say this because Congress didn't explicitly want to take the heat for mandating the birth control requirement. This is an important issue, because regulations issued by HHS can be changed...by HHS. Regulations aren't as strong as federal statues.

So now, you have an employer (Hobby Lobby) that claims a sincere religious belief would be violated by complying with the regulation promulgated under the law, but claiming protection under a federal statute.

And so now you have a complicated problem. You have to balance the employer's religious beliefs against the compelling government interest (the regulation). Also, you've got to deal with a federal law (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) passed in 1993 that basically says you have to apply "strict scrutiny" to laws that burden religious views, even if the law is religiously neutral - which is what we have here.

Note, the government's position concedes that the RFRA applies to for profit corporations, but they're basically asking the Supreme Court to ignore that.

Strict scrutiny is basically a death knell for anything that has to pass through it, so my guess is that the Court will apply the RFRA and issue a very narrow decision allowing Hobby Lobby an exemption based on religious grounds.

One big problem for the government is getting out from under the RFRA, and Toobin doesn't even mention the statue in his stupid little write up!

Also, It's not going to help the government's case that so many other waivers have been granted. It's hard to argue that there's a compelling government interest in this specific case when the government itself has given other entities a pass.

But that's just me.

Can Government Solve the Stay-At-Home-Mom Debate?

This piece from The New Republic (via Althouse) explores the phenomenon of highly educated, high-powered women who opt to be stay-at-home-moms, rather than push ever higher in their professional lives. It also offers a solution.

To understand why female lawyers, doctors, bankers, academics, high-tech executives and other, often expensively pedigreed, professionals quit work to stay home, you need not search their souls for ambivalence or nostalgia....

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I think that many high-powered, professional women are somewhat conflicted or ambivalent about it. I know that they are at least afraid of being judged by women who are in the other camp.

Specifically, stay-at-home-moms are afraid of being judged as not ambitious by the women who pursue successful careers. On the flip side of the coin, I think that some professional women are afraid of being judged as not being as child oriented as they could be. It certainly takes long hours to climb the ladder in certain professions.

To reject a high-flying career, as this man did and so many women have done, is not to reject aspiration; it is to refuse to succumb to a kind of madness.

I certainly agree with this. The old feminist mantra was that as a woman, you could "have it all". That's just not possible, especially if you're in a profession where you have extreme demands on your time if you want to beat everyone else out for advancement.

Achieving professional success is admirable, but what's the point of making all that money if you don't have a life? I think it's a question of what each person finds to be most fulfilling. That will be different for everyone, and it doesn't mean that either choice is better in the abstract. The bottom line is that life is full of trade-offs. You can't have it all. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a fool or is selling something.

The problem with this piece is the solution it proposes. The proposed solution is to have the government come in and mandate maximum working hours for professionals. Everyone will be barred from working long hours, so the folks who want to spend more time with their families don't have to compete with those who sacrifice family time to achieve professional success.

The main reason white-collar workers can be driven to work 80-hour-or-so weeks is that very few of them have government protections. Most of them are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which mandates the 40-hour-week and overtime pay. American managers aren’t allowed to join unions. Other countries have laws that protect against overwork even for professionals, such as standard or maximum number of hours anyone can work in a week.

This would never work here in America, and it's a horrible idea. Can you imagine a law that mandated the maximum hours lawyers could work in a week? The bell rings at 5:00PM and all the lawyers go home for the day? Oh, you had an issue that needed some extra attention on Friday? Sorry. We'll get to it on Monday.

Or for doctors? Oh, you went into labor at 6:30PM on a Friday? I guess we'll just keep you in a holding pattern until Monday morning. The doctor has already done her government mandated time. We could just let a nurse do the delivery for you, though.

A fundamental part of the American ethos is hard work. Hard work separates the great achievers from the slackers or those who choose not to work. Everyone isn't equal, and you can't just tell the folks who want to sacrifice their home life for their careers that they have to go home now. Different people have different priorities.

Wow, talk about a restriction on choice, too. This sounds like a prohibition on ambition. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not taking sides in the stay-at-home vs. career mom debate, but the government can't simply solve this problem by requiring that people only work 40 hours a week.

Hey! You can't work so hard and go the extra mile because there are others out there who choose other priorities, and it wouldn't be fair to make them have to compete with you.

Life is full of choices. Be a grown-up. Make your choices and live with them. The government isn't here to make everyone the same.

 

Friday Morning Coffee Thread

I didn't watch Obama's speech last night, but I heard the guy can give a heck of a speech. If you're interested in how it went, Ann Althouse live-blogged it.

In more important local news, if you're like me, you've been frustrated with the lack of coverage at Williams-Brice Stadium when 80,000 plus people all try to make telephone calls and text at the same time. However, Verizon will be upping the capacity with a mobile cell site. This is great. Now, you can read my blog and follow me on twitter while you're at the game.

See y'all on the other side of the weekend. 

This post is brought to you by Daytona Beach, 1906.