Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Is Your Brood Shod?



One thing I can't stand is seeing kids running around without shoes at the park.

Their feet are bare simply because their Moronic parents can't bring themselves to enforce a modicum of discipline; they can't say *NO*. We may be in the Greater Depression but footwear still remains within the parameters of family budgeting. The poor steal sneakers anyway - Air Jordans and whatnot.

So it's not really the unshod brats at risk of splinters, hookworm, and *dirty feet* that chafe me....it's their jelly-spined, malpracticing parents. People who can't scold or deny their kids are altering the trajectory of their futures - and setting themselves up for a lifetime of personal guilt.

There's one local *mom* whom I see at the local community center. They have toys and whatnot there. She has a 3 year old boy who always runs over to the costumes and dons a purple dress. He wears it there for hours on end because *mom* can't get it off him without a fight. The rest of us all shake our collective heads at this spectacle which says so much more about the parent than the incipient Tinkerbell.

Just imagine what's going to be running through that mother's head when her son is 35 and still unattached. She'll no doubt be kicking herself for letting him prance around in that dress!

UPDATE - Follow-up post here.

100 comments:

paul mitchell said...

Is it wrong to lose control of your laughter over a simple blog post title? I am too easily amused. Kudos.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=am7Ds.JhNxvw

Goldman is in the news breaking records on trading profits.

aupanner said...

and i'm out here on the west coast - Bay Area - where the "no shoe" thing is practically an epidemic. There's a local play area that has one of those awesome rubber/spongy floors. As if that makes it ok to be barefoot. Freakin hippies.

CaptiousNut said...

I did have to change the title. I think *Shod Your Brood* may have been grammatically incorrect.

Anonymous said...

http://www.breitbart.tv/house-majority-leader-argues-with-democrat-tea-party-protester-during-news-conference/

One of the best lines I have heard and from a registered democrat!!

"He wants to pass health care in 3-4 weeks when it took him 6 months to choose a dog!"
kfell

auntulna said...

Good pickup on hookworm. It explains generations of anemic white trash rednecks and pickaninnies. "He was New Age" will do from now on.

CaptiousNut said...

I might have to re-title yet again:

Is Your Brood Shoed?

That one at least rhymes.

auntulna,

Hookworm was prominent in my alarmist grade school science textbooks 25 years ago. It's sort of an antiquated ailment now, I think. I use the term all the time to get a rise out of my 'old bag' MIL (whom I adore!).

paul mitchell said...

C-Nut, I laughed at the first title and they are getting progressively better.

unci said...

Being barefoot is one of the childhood things I most fondly remember. It is a simple and harmless pleasure (most mentioned dangers are imaginary and far outweighed by the health benefits of living barefoot) - why should parents deny their child this pleasure?

Hookworm infections are a negligible risk, it's much more likely to be run over by a car on the way to the playground or back. A substantial risk are bee stings, so teach your children early on to watch out near flowers!

Anonymous said...

Thank God you're monitoring my parenting like this. Any other unsolicited advice you'd like to give me about raising my kids?

whipple said...

More podiatrists would tell you that shoes are damaging to children's feet and letting them run around in the grass barefoot is a good idea... but... you know.... it is somehow so effin' offensive that some parents reject the notion that we need equipment to touch the planet with.

Anonymous said...

Actually, going barefoot on natural surfaces is very healthy, both for adults and children.

In all but the most dangerous circumstances, excessive reliance on shoes causes more problems than it prevents. Educate yourself.

I'd call you a "moron," but I think the adjective "ignorant" fits better in this case. I will let you pick the noun.


Shan Morgain
said...

I have been a barefooter all my life - I'm 60 now. My mother, now 86 was also one and her mother and brother too.

The family tradition continues with my huge 18yrs son who has never worn shoes for more than a couple of hours very occasionally for a high formal event like a funeral.
Sigh. We too got the constant stupid ignorant question "Can't you afford shoes?" This goes back to the snobbery of the early 20thC when only the well off could afford shoes every day.

I don't know whether this blog entry is a spoof really. It's not quite crass or extreme enough to be clearly taking the mickey. So just in case I'll take it for real.

Barefooting is not unhealthy, dirty or unsafe.

In fact it's far healthier than wearing shoes which cramp and distort feet creating all kinds of health problems incl. bad backs.

My son was always far better balanced, better at climbing, and even calmer than other kids in shoes. Shoes HURT when you're not used to them which applies to all small kids. I watched my son climb Cheddar Gorge around 60ft up - at 8yrs. Perfectly safe, he was like a tough little ape.
It's also stood him well for martial arts where he's a demon fighter mostly due to strong sure balance.

Barefooting not dirty. Skin does not make dirt stick like dead skin (leather) or plastics do. The dirt drops off much quicker as you walk into a building so when oters are still tracking it in, you're not.

Bare feet don't get put on tables! or anywhere offensive any more than shoes are.
As for the common question on stepping in muck well you don't. Within weeks you learn to scan without being aware you're doing it. You step in it far less than shoe wearers who tend to be careless where they put their feet.

Bare feet don't SMELL! Sweat doesn't build up, soak into sock or shoe and go stale. It instantly ventilates and the foot stays dry. (This is an important issue for teenage males.)

Barefooting is safe. The skin on the sole rapidly toughens - it takes around 4 - 6 weeks. In fact it becomes tougher than many shoes. In summer when I barefoot more I don't even think about glass, splinters. I can just walk on 'em! and they drop away.
I did wash my son's feet when small in salt water every few nights just in case of tiny cuts but I was probably being overprotective.

Regarding chemicals etc there is very little protection from flip flops either. Liquid splashes in between the sole of sandal and sole of foot.
So most bio- or mineral-hazards are fenced off places, if serious, and only closed in shoes or boots are adequate. same as a building site or science lab.

There ARE a few hazards. Don't walk barefoot at night in the park because of rusty metal sharps, and dirty needles, for which ditto city centres. Don't walk barefoot in tropical countries because of parasites that lie in the earth there.

Othewise FREE THE FEET!
While getting used to it, do it for longer and longer periods, like breaking in new shoes. Wash in salt water till the skin hardens. Expect to take around 4 - 6 weeks to learn to automatically scan the ground for yuck without noticing you're doing it.

Enjoy the massive sensuality of it. Ground textures are amazingly varied. The strength in bare feet travels up the spine so it's good for posture. Release those poor battered toes from potential bunions and corns, ingrown toenails. Gain a beautiful sense of balance as you move about.

If nothing else do give up shoes indoors. It saves your carpets or flooring and you get a lot of the benefits.

Shoe manufacturers make a FORTUNE out of the damage you're doing your feet.

Or choose not to barefoot. But at least now you know a bit about it.

barefoot4life said...

I can't believe all the negative and uniformed comments by the above foot-a-phobics. Barefooting is far more healthier than shoes can ever be.

Our society today is highly educated with access to a wealth of information, yet there are numerous myths surrounding barefooting which are completely unfounded and untrue.

If people are too lazy to scan the ground they are walking on, at least research the myths about barefoot walking. Think about it, when is the last time you saw; glass everywhere, hypodermic needles laying around, and dog crap and spit in your path? Liability?? I've written to many corporate lawyers to show me a clause in their stores policy. They all have admitted there is none. So I've been able to shop barefoot without hassle in every grocery store and business I frequent.

Shoes cause bunions, blisters, corns, ingrown toenails, athletes foot and odor. Please, look it up. The skin on barefeet, and the rest of the body, is an excellent barrier to bacteria and viruses. Plus barefeet are not confined which limits deformations of the foot as well as chaffing. Barefeet are aired out and exposed to sunlight, which obviously would not cause oder. You can't say that about shoes.

Please take a chill pill, kick off those shoes, and enjoy life barefoot :)

CaptiousNut said...

This post was primarily about parents who can't discipline their kids. Isn't that clear?

The kids running around in my tony neighborhood don't know a thing about the health benefits of bare feet. I sincerely do appreciate the edification.

So I guess at home, I shouldn't be wearing flip-flops all day, no?

Where did all you foot-nudists come from today? Did someone link to me? I can't find it.

Anonymous said...

Moronic parents are the ones who deprive their kids of the joy of life by forcing them to isolate their feet in shoes! Free feet are happy feet.

auntulna said...

Glad to return to this thread...Surprised by the fervor from the barefoot minions. My perspective as a medicalizer for a good while is that the way your feet turn out(get it?) is mostly a matter of luck. You can do almost anything the first twenty years of your life and still get laid. After that, things change. I really enjoy a good pair of shoes!!

CaptiousNut said...

Shan Morgain,

You wrote:

Barefooting is safe. The skin on the sole rapidly toughens - it takes around 4 - 6 weeks. In fact it becomes tougher than many shoes. In summer when I barefoot more I don't even think about glass, splinters. I can just walk on 'em! and they drop away.

Is that what we want? Hard feet?

I'm not so sure, under the covers, that I want to brush up against anything *harder than a shoe*!

Myranya said...

While I agree it's no good how some parents let their kids get away with anything and everything, I strongly disagree with the main example you have chosen to illustrate your point.

It is sad there is such a bias against bare feet in the US -here in Europe it's generally considered a healthy practice, and even in the US there seem to be more store & fastfood employees who have a problem with it than doctors and nurses...

The anti-barefoot attitude is almost entirely based on misinformation and myths. Going barefoot is not dangerous; I haven't worn footwear (not even flipflops) for 14 years, I walk lots both in country and city environment, and the number of times I've cut my feet? Zero. Even a minor splinter happens maybe once a year, certainly less than I get minor scrapes on my hands.

Nor does going barefoot cause colds; I used to be sickly, coughing and sneezing from early fall until late spring, but these past 14 years I have called in sick only once -for two days, and not even in winter.

Hookworm has pretty much been eradicated from the South since modern plumbing replaced the outhouses, and never was a great problem in cooler areas. Athlete's foot needs the dark, warm, damp environment of a shoe to grow; it is very rare among populations that go barefoot more.

Feet do not need support, even on hard surfaces; research showed the men who pulled the rikshaws in Asia had very few foot problems, even running barefoot on paved roads all day long!

And contrary to popular myth, there are no Health Department laws requiring footwear in stores and restaurants. Yes, all those signs saying 'required by...' are false!

(oh, and while I can't speak for everyone, my feet aren't 'hard' as such, they're very tough but it is a leathery toughness. If you get rough edges a foot file will quickly take care of that)

Please, anyone who has fallen for any of those common myths about bare feet take a look at http://www.barefooters.org and for parents I would also recommend this link: http://www.unshod.org/pfbc/toysaw.htm

paul mitchell said...

C-Nut, please quit pissing off the anti-shoe crowd.

CaptiousNut said...

Myranya,

Thanks for the links. How did you find this post? Did someone link to me today?

Also, *leathery*....I guess some folk are into that!

Shampoo Mitchell,

I'm all ears to the feet people at the moment.

Remember, I in mourning from having just re-messed up my knee with those darned flip-flops.

Mindi Young said...

C-Nut, I am in a Yahoo! group for barefooters, and someone sent out the link for your blog. That is probably why you're getting so many posts from barefooters.

I think we all realize that your point had less to do with barefooting and more to do with bad parenting, but you said a lot of things that barefooters would consider misconceptions, so that's why others felt the need to post more information about barefooting.

I completely agree with your main point, that a lot of parents these days take the easy way out, and give in rather than make a scene. I worked at Blockbuster for awhile and I remember one dad in particular. He allowed his two or three year old to hold the candy until they got up to the register. When he took the candy to hand to me to ring it up, the kid started throwing a fit. Instead of telling the kid to stop and that they wouldn't get the candy anymore, like my mom would have said to me, he wanted me to hurry up so he could give the candy to the kid to shut them up.

I do, however, disagree with the example you chose. Allowing your children to go barefoot isn't giving in to a weird desire, its allowing them to be more natural and healthy. Which I think was the main point of the informative comments.

I did like the example of the three year old in the purple dress. That definitely shows parental laziness.

unci said...

Barefoot kids are not necessarily the results of lazy parents. (Though it does make life easier for parents if there isn't that much footwear to buy, wash, keep in order, make sure children put them on and don't lose them, etc, it's only a minor side effect.)

As pointed out above, going barefoot is a pleasure for children, with more benefits than disadvantages, at least as long as they don't go to the truly dangerous places. So this is not the right place for a parent/child power struggle. What is important though is to teach your children to watch their step when they are barefoot, to avoid injuries (stings and the like).
And their feet don't get "hard" then. They get a bit leathery under the toes, pads and heels, that's the natural state our bodies evolved into.

But right, the point was about parenting. There are many more important fields for "active parenting". Teaching your child to respect others, to be honest and fair to them, to control and channel their aggressions, to deal with defeat, to find their place without being mean to others, these are all truly important lessons for life. If you have not learned these things early on, you will have a hard time later in life and give others a hard time too. If however you have played barefoot in the park every summer, I don't see how that would make you a lesser member of our society. Parents should choose their priorities right and make the best of the time that they have for their children.

CaptiousNut said...

I never thought it was *dangerous* to be unshod. And I don't think most of the other billions of toe-incarcerators do either. So debunking health and safety concerns is almost strawmanish.

Most everyone wears shoes; I confess, I've never even thought about how warranted shoes were. What we have here is a triumph of custom and marketing, I guess. Just as there's no wealthy yoga lobby convincing doctors to prescribe it, or homeschooling lobby....obviously there's no *bare-foot* lobby out running color TV commercials on the benefits of being unshod.

I'm wondering, though, is this not just a slippery slope toward full nudism?

Seriously, this is all very interesting to me - and yet another example of my blogging bounty.

Myranya said...

I see that Mindi Young already answered most of your earlier questions, good to see 'cause I was at work (barefoot of course :-)). Indeed I usually follow these links and provide info and links. We may not have the money for commercials on television, but we can post online!

It's good to read your concern was not in the first place the risks involved, but from reading many other forum/blog/yahoo answers/etc posts, I know this concern is much more common than you think. For some reason, many folks seem to think the world is totally covered in broken glass and the skin of the foot tears as easily as a piece of paper...

As far as the slippery slope, I don't think so. Feet are not private parts, they're more like hands than any other body part. Also, in flipflops you see all of the foot, and we can -at least in most public places, and certainly in the park- go with legs bare from those narrow flipflop straps all the way up to a pair of shorts, without anyone wondering if that is a 'slippery slope'. Maybe it's the fact that the signs in the US (I've never seen one here in Europe) say 'no shoes, no shirt, no service'? I know a few barefooters who also like to go shirtless, but most of us don't care, and I know a few guys who always wear shoes who like to go shirtless as well. I don't think there is a connection except on the signs.

Anonymous said...

CaptiousNut said...
This post was primarily about parents who can't discipline their kids. Isn't that clear?

How many children do you have and how have you raised them? Do they live in fear of going outdoors without shoes?

Anonymous said...

CaptiousNut said...
"I'm wondering, though, is this not just a slippery slope toward full nudism?"

Bare feet = nude?

Obviously not a concern for you considering your profile picture.

paul mitchell said...

Your experiment is complete, the foot nudists definitely have no sense of humor. They must be lefties.

Anonymous said...

Foot nudists? Lefties? I don't know if your vision is very well but I must point out that there are numerous flip flops, high heels and other typs of footwear that barely cover the foot. Some styles of footwear have clear straps to make the feet appear bare.

If you read (assuming you can see) any periodicals and watch any amount of T.V., movies, music videos, you'll see barefeet everyday. Its only natural, just like our hands.

The main difference with hands is that they are major carriers of bacteria and viruses. Hands touch dirty things such as money, telephones, door handles, hand rails, bathroom fixtures, then touch our food, eyes and mouthes. Feet are just on the ground. Even when they are trapped in shoes which breed enormous amounts of bacteria.

Funny you mention Lefties. I really wish it were legal to stomp persons with extreme left political views. Using my barefeet of course. That goes for conservatives as well.

....after all this, I must agree with the point the blog is trying to make. Parents need to discipline their children, teach them respect and to be responsible for their own actions. A good spanking is in order when needed.

paul mitchell said...

C-Nut, sorry man, but your blog has deteriorated into some kind of weird nekkid feet, bondage and discipline site devoid of all humor. I gotta draw the line with these weird fetishes being included with my financial and self-educating blogs.

Anonymous said...

I believe the name of this blog is missleading. Marginalizing Morons would be minimizing or reducing the quality of acceptance of those who are deemed, unintellegent, thoughtless, act on impulse or emotion without thought.

Yet, while reading the blog topic "is your brood shod?" I've read myths and bizzare comments about walking barefoot. Getting hookworm?? Do you know what regions of the world where hookworm is common, how someone can be infected, and about the erradication of it? Anger at parents letting their children play barefoot at the park and playground? What is more natural and healthy than kicking off your shoes and enjoying yourself.

Paul Mitchell has posted the remarks claiming some of the other blogs are " weird nekkid feet fetishes." I don't recall anything about fetishes being posted here. Maybe Paul thinks feet are privates? That's moronic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't everyone born without shoes? How long has the human race been around before shoes were invented. When did shoes actually gain wide spread popularity. Heck, modern day running shoes were first developed abut 40 years ago. Google all the articles which scientificly correlate running injuries with running shoes.

It is extremely moronic that parents would force their children to constantly wear shoes, even when playing at the playground. Why would anyone with any amount of sense force their childern to do something harmful to them selves? It also appears that this blog topic has been taken over by the very morons which it is trying to marginalize.

With all the great wealth of knowlege we have readily available, we need to insure parents are well informed and can pass that knowlege onto their children. Only then can myths be debunked with scientific studies, and our health improved with the myriad of studies conducted which may guide us to a healthier and better quality of life.

Barefoot4life

paul mitchell said...

And the UNhilarity continues.....

CaptiousNut said...

Barefoot4life,

My *hookworm* insert was a jest.

See the comment I left on August 5th at 9:18PM.

And don't mind Paul Mitchell...

He's more a *hair* fetishist!

I KNOW he'd never incarcerate his well-balanced and conditioned locks in a beret - and definitely not in a turban or a ghetto *lid*.

What a hypocrite!

CaptiousNut said...

What do y'all think of these shoes?

aupanner said...

hmm, i'm new to this. and this is off topic from the original post. but doesn't the being a total (shoeless) freak have any health risks? what's better, healthy back and thick soles while being a complete freak or soft feet, strained back, and not a social retard?

Hmmmmm

Cnut, nice work on 30+ comments.

Anonymous said...

Amazing. Over 33 posts. I hope the majority of them are in favor of diciplining children and teaching them respect as well as taking responsibility for their actions.

Aupanner, in your last post you conveyed a worry that going barefoot my involve health risks. Many of the posts here dispell the myths surrounding walking barefoot. For more information check out in Yahoo groups, SBL. The Society for Barefoot Living is a wealth of knowledge about walking barefoot.

Speaking of health risks, look into all of the lists which state the top 10 ways viruses are spread. Every single instance is by hands and airborne vapor (from coughing and sneezing). I have yet to see what deadly viruses are spreed by feet. I guess that is because feet are always on the ground. Hands touch phones, remote controls, key boards, buttons on ATM machines, door knobs, hand rails, and money. Then once the hands are contaminated they touch food, mouth, and eyes which are doors for the bacteria/virus to enter our bodies and make us sick.

barefoot4life

paul mitchell said...

ATM machines, queso cheese, hot water heaters, what else ya' got?

Anonymous said...

oh, never mind.

barefoot4life

Anonymous said...

Interesting discussion thus far. I have to tell you I live in a country that would probably be your worst nightmare. Here in New Zealand homeschooling is illegal, and around 90% of children attend state school.

On the issue of child discipline, two years ago the government passed a law making it illegal for parents to spank their children. A couple months ago a national referendum was held on this law and 88% voted to overturn it and allow parental spanking. However, in NZ referendums have no actual legal power and the governent stated it would not repeal the law.

On the subject of this blog it is very common for people, especially children, to go barefoot in New Zealand. Children wear uniforms to schools here but all primary (elementary) schools allow children to come barefoot and many do. Even those who wear shoes there take them off on arrival. At high school kids are told they must either change into sneakers for PE or play barefoot, most choose bare feet. There are no "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs anywhere and adults and teens go barefoot to the mall or supermarket in warm weather as much as kids. In fact many McDonald's have signs on the door stating "Please Remove Muddy Footwear Before Entering". They actually prefer you barefoot to dirty shoes!

People here find the American aversion to bare feet quite curious, even laughable. We aren't all Hobbits here, most adults wear shoes but no one thinks anything bad, or even takes notice of, the sizable barefoot minority. Most people think a barefoot childhood is a must.

Oh, and to top it all off, we also have government-run universal healthcare! For which we pay a 12.5% sales tax, and $7/gallon for gas. And you know what? We're fine with that. What a country, eh?

paul mitchell said...

I think I know why there are so many barefoot kids and parents in New Zealand. They can't afford them because they are getting taxed to friggin' death to pay for substandard medical services. my heart breaks for them and (it looks like) us, too.

Anonymous said...

Actually NZ has a life expectancy ranked 33 spots higher than the US. Do we pay higher taxes? Yes and no. We have no capital gains tax, one of the lowest corporate taxes in the world and no property taxes. We pay higher income and sales taxes. But substandard is a poor description of our healthcare. I have lived in the US and found the NZ system superior.

If you don't want to rely on the govt. system here you can always purchase private health insurance. It only costs about $25/month and provides full cover. Yet 80% of New Zealanders choose not to do so, feeling safe in the govt. system.

One thing about our system that right-wingers might like, we don't allow personal injury lawsuits, at all. There is thus no need for malpractice insurance for doctors, keeping costs way down.

But to rebut the little joke about Kiwis being too taxed to afford shoes I just have to say it is perfectly common to see people hopping out of Mercedes and BMW's in bare feet. It's a cultural thing, not a wealth thing.

CaptiousNut said...

Okay, what would NZ's life expectancy be if we transplanted all of the ghetto thugs we have who die, on average, at age 24? What if we transplanted a sub-population, that's growing day by day, that's *entitled* to third party-provided healthcare, not to mention housing, food stamps, etc.

Though, we wouldn't need to send the actual people to you....we could just send our politicians who are so adept at creating *ideological plantations*.

Never mind.

I like that about *disallowing personal injury* lawsuits.

Me, I'm comfortable assessing the doctor on my own and taking my chances.

Barefoot and jumping out of a Mercedes?

I believe it's illegal to drive barefoot in America.

And, since you guys are still here, can I get a ruling on socks?

Is wearing them around the house all day bad for my feet?

I never have foot odor, and I've never had *athlete's foot* -though, occasionally I've suffered from *athlete's mind*.

paul mitchell said...

C-Nut, NZ doesn't even have to have the thugs, the WHO report used each country's standards to determine life expectancy. In the US, we count any baby born with a beating heart as a live birth, the next closest of any country is to count a baby after 90 days and that is in one of the Central American countries. I do not remember, but I think all the lower Indian Ocean countries all count them at one year. Oddly, most all early death is in the first year. SHOCKA! Wonder what that does to the math?

Also, the WHO report charges R&D costs to one country in figuring total cost of individual medical services, guess which one? There is also one country that spends more than the next three closest countries combined on R&D. Guess which one?

Finally, in regards to the WHO Report, they had one task, to promote a government medical services option. It is actually in the charter of the body. They are worth exactly NOTHING to determine which country has the best medical services.

Oddly, guess which country has the highest survival rate for every single major disease?

And every time I see a German car pull up, I expect those gangsters to step out from them. If not, it's a wage slave that puts about three dollars of gas in their overpriced, hunk of shit. If you want to impress me, step out of a real automobile that is paid for.

Funny where this barefoot, hillbilly-rube conversation has taken us, huh?

Anonymous said...

CN, I must correct another barefoot myth which you mentioned in your previous post. There are absolutely no laws against driving barefoot in America. I've personally seen that myth debunked twice. Once on the T.V. show MythBusters, and as MythBusting episode on MTV. Additionally, my dad was a California Highway Patrol Officer (CHP) and many of my friends are in law enforcement. They laugh at the idea when someone thinks there is some clothing requirement in order to drive a vehicle. The only laws which regulate clothing pertain to decency and lewd conduct.

Barefoot4life

paul mitchell said...

Well, except for Kentucky, where it IS against the law, but I guess to barefooters, Kentucky is NOT "America." Kentucky also has a law against putting an ice cream cone in your pocket, too. It took 0.35 seconds to debunk the barefooter's lie on The Google.

Sorry, facts matter to some people, but obviously not to people that do not wear shoes.

CaptiousNut said...

This topic won't go away....

In the Boston Globe today.

Barefoot Ken Bob said...

Sadly, shoes are responsible for most of the foot deformities in the U.S.A. and other "civilized" societies. The healthiest feet are those that don't serve a lifetime imprisonment.

I was born with, what some would consider a serious defect, no shoes. I have learned to live with this defect, and still go barefoot whenever practical (about 99% of the time), and will be running my 74th barefoot marathon race (26.2 miles) this Sunday.

Life is good, for my feet, they get fresh air, exercise, frequent bathing, and don't smell like shoes. In return, my bare feet, with their multitude of nerves, teach me to walk and run lightly on the earth, on a wide variety of surfaces.

Being healthy, strengthening my immune systems, and being exposed to fresh air and sunlight, my feet have been disease free - except when forced inside prisons - I mean shoes - at school, etc..

Keeping our feet inside damp, dark, musty shoes, for more than an hour or two at a time, naturally they're going to get diseased, and stink!

Anonymous said...

I was kind of bored so I decided to flip through the Kentucky DMV drivers manual for fun. I've read almost every other states drivers manual. After I finish reading every states drivers manual I'm going to start memorizing names and phone numbers in my local phone book.

Oh,BTW, when I was reading the KY DMV drivers handbook, it mentioned that boots SHOULD be worn instead of sneakers WHEN operating a motorcycle. Funny, it didn't say MUST. In fact, there was no mention of any shoe requirement for any operator of any vehicle. Where did you get your information? I googled it as well and didn't find a link to the KY DMV stating shoe must be worn while driving.

Oddly enough, many states recommend driving barefoot as oppose to driving while wearing flip flops, high heels, any other shoe that doesn't secure to the heel, or big clunky shoes.

You seem like the kind of guy that would put a ice cream cone in your pocket.

barefoot4life

Anonymous said...

I guess I've broken the law quite a few times while passing through Kentucky. And lov'n it.

I hear the kids are out of control out there. Probably because they don't wear shoes and their mamas didn't tell them to.

Anonymous said...

You are correct that New Zealand does indeed have a much lower murder rate than the US and that may have a very small affect on the life expectancy being higher. We also have lower obesity and smoking rates and much higher compliance with seat-belt laws. All these do account for increased life expectancy. Nevertheless I have consistently found the medical care in NZ to involve shorter wait times, better doctor care and less expense than what I experienced in the US.

Also, to dispute one of the gripes mentioned about the WHO report, about NZ not reporting infant deaths as part of life expectancy calculations, it so happens hat NZ's infant mortality rate is significantly lower than the US.

It is perfectly legal to drive barefoot in NZ as well. I've been stopped by police at sobriety and vehicle registration checkpoints, while driving barefoot and nothing has been said by the officers.

On the health of going barefoot, I will agree that for people with healthy, neutral feet it may be preferable but for many people bare feet just aren't the best choice. I had awful back aches working in retail as a teen until I discovered orthotic insoles solved all my problems that were caused by high arches. Going barefoot is enjoyable for around the house and running errands in nice weather, but many people need shoes. I don't buy the argument that bare feet all the time are really best for everyone.

Here in NZ there was a little debate last year when a podiatrist suggested it was damaging kids' feet that they all run cross-country barefoot. School-wide cross-country races are an autumn ritual at all NZ primary and secondary schools. Most school principals just shrugged and said it was the kids' choice and other podiatrists said it was perfectly safe.

Just one last thing I have to add. I should have mentioned that our lack of personal injury lawsuits in NZ comes at a price you likely would hate more. We have something called ACC. Basically the government pays for all medical bills caused by any accident or work injury regardless of who is at fault or how much care is needed. They do this even for non-citizens and tourists injured while visiting. ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) is covered by a 1.5% income tax, 2% corporate tax, road user fee ($180/yr) and a small gas tax.

paul mitchell said...

NZ's infant mortality rate is NOT lower than the US. Again, the US considers every single child born with a heartbeat and reflexive movement as "viable." NZ doesn't count a baby as "viable" until its first birthday. (Yes, I went back and checked the WHO report on NZ after someone brought that ridiculous crap up yet again.)

As far as the quality of care, PATIENTS rank the US system higher than any other country on Earth. This is ALSO is the WHO Report, for what that is worth.

Anyone that quotes statistics from the WHO Report, without knowing what it says, can be effectively ignored as a MORON.

Dan said...

I have seen those parents letting the little rug rats go with no shoes. What is even more disgusting is that almost none of the poor children is wearing gloves. Everyone knows that our nasty hands are primary culprits in spreading germs and disease. This is not to mention the risk of infection from scrapes and cuts from unprotected hands. How could any rational person ever go bare handed?

CaptiousNut said...

See my new post:

Bare Feet Co-Opted By Eco-Pagans

Anonymous said...

Who said anything about getting my statistics from the WHO report? My stats on NZ having a lower infant mortality rate than the USA comes from the CIA World Fact Book. It ranks NZ 33rd in the world out of 224 with an infant mortality rate of 4.92/1,000. The USA is ranked 45th in the world with a rate of 6.26/1,000.

Furthermore I don't know how you are managing to misread the WHO report, perhaps you think you're looking at the infant mortality rate when you are not. But the simple fact is the DEFINITION of Infant Mortality Rate is: Number of deaths Before the 1st birthday per 1,000 children born alive. If a country didn't count a baby as viable until its first birthday for the purpose of this statistic, its infant mortality rate would be ZERO.

That means whatever statistic you think you're looking at, it is not the infant mortality rate! However spurious the WHO report may be, there is no way it allows countries to report an infant mortality rate in a way that makes that rate zero.

Perhaps you are looking at the childhood mortality rates that look at children who die under age 5. That is an area where it is possible NZ only counts children who die between 1 and 5 while the US counts infants too. Calling people morons without getting your facts straight makes you look like a moron.

On the subject of the US love for the healthcare system. Since you have already so well de-bunked the WHO report I wouldn't trust any survey you found there. I'd like to know what the sample size was, who conducted it and what the margin of error was before I accept it. If they mailed out a survey and let people self-report it is useless as a real gauge of people's feelings. Who was asked? Only people with full coverage health insurance, or a random sampling of Americans?

Beyond happiness with care, there is the cost. The average US family health insurance package is just over $13,000/year. If you get it through work you likely pay only 25% of this cost yourself, so about $3,300/year. In NZ you can get the same type of family cover for about US$1,000/year. Why? In part because the insurers must compete with a free government run system everyone is entitled to.

paul mitchell said...

Anon, just so you know, your facts are in direct contradiction to the CIA stats. They rank the infant mortality the OTHER way, NZ is 192, the US is 180, yes those numbers that you quoted are their numbers. The WHO Report does not use those numbers from the CIA, either. Again, the stat is ONE year for the CIA listing using stats offered by the countries themselves. But, the US standard submitted is "born with a heartbeat and reflexive movement." Yet, again, the US counts EVERY BABY, even for the CIA report. Again, no other country in the world uses the US standard. This also skews the ridiculous life expectancy rate as well. You are WRONG, sir, ma'am, ambiguous other.

Anonymous said...

My stats are not in contradiction to the CIA stats, they are the CIA stats! Yes the CIA lists them in the opposite way, which can be confusing to some people. So I reversed the numbers by the simple act of counting up from the bottom. Try it, you will find the US is 45 ranks up from the botton.

Again you seem to fail to comprehend that your "fact" that NZ determines infant mortality by measuring only how many babies that live to the age of one year die before the age of one year makes ZERO sense. Your so-called fact is completely illogical. But I see you earlier posted a 'fact' about driving barefoot in Kentucky that was also proven to be totally false. This seems to be a pattern with you.

Taking infant mortality out of the equation, the US still has a lower life expectancy. The US and NZ are separated by 12 ranks on infant mortality. According the the CIA Fact Book the US is ranked 50th for Life Expectancy, while New Zealand is ranked 18th, that's 32 ranks higher! Infant mortality and violent crime cannot account for that gap. Look at some of the other nations ranked higher than the US. Bosnia, Israel, Italy, the UK. These are hardly places that have no violent crime.

The fact is the US spends by far the most per capita on healthcare and gets the least in return. NZ spends about a quarter what the US does on a per capita basis but performs well. Why? Because 50% of all money spent on healthcare in the US actually is spent somewhere else, on advertising, red tape, insurance company bureaucrats and so on. Literally every socialised medical system in the world has better efficiency.

paul mitchell said...

Yes, Anon, you took data and flipped the numbers. That is disingenuous for someone that obviously has zero comprehension of basic mathematics. And I pointed that out in my prior comment.

On to the Kentucky thingy. I Googled 'barefoot driving' and the very first article on the page stated Code numbers and penalties in Kentucky. I did not double check it and I find that I was mistaken after actually reading the Kentucky State Code. Touche.

Infant mortality: The US is the ONLY country in the entire world that counts every baby born with a beating heart and reflexive movement as viable. No other country on the planet uses those standards. No other country on the planet counts any baby that dies within the first 24 hours when FORTY PERCENT of the babies in the US die. All other countries also have a low birth weight qualification. The US does not.

Wonder what that does to life expectancy? Learn math or continue to sound like an idiot.

Check the bottom five paragraphs of my post where I do the math, HERE.

The US infant mortality rate is FORTY PERCENT LOWER by NZ standards. Facts? You can't understand them.

Sorry, gotta go find my shoes.

Anonymous said...

Well Paul I don't know why exactly you are attacking, in an incredibly insulting way, my mathematics abilities. There was nothing disingenuous about flipping the rankings. Instead of saying the US was 180th from the bottom, I said it was 45th from the top. Both are perfectly true. In fact, Wikipedia, in listing the same info from the CIA factbook, also flips the numbers as I did and it makes them no less correct.

I accept your fact about the US counting babies that live less than a day, I was disputing your claim that NZ didn't count babies that died at age 10 months or 11 months in their infant mortality rates. That's what it sounded like you were arguing. Perhaps you need to learn how to write properly.

So if the US infant mortality rate really is closer to 3.7/1,000 as your 40% figure suggests, that still won't put the US at the top of the life expectancy charts. You have not said anything about the amount of money the US spends on healthcare to get those results.

Since the US spends several times what NZ does on healthcare per capita, it should be getting massively better results. Just the way no military can compare to the US because the US spends so much more than anyone else on it.

You say the US has the best healthcare hands down, but what about all those people who have no access to it? I found my healthcare in the US to be terrible when I had insurance but much worse when I didn't. Once I finished college I was cut off from my parents policy and couldn't get insurance of my own because of a pre-existing condition. My employer didn't provide insurance. I was an accountant by the way, someone making a living on mathematics.

I am thankful everyday that I now live in a country where I don't have to worry about getting sick or having an accident because it could bankrupt me.

Rather than simply debate the facts you have been nothing but rude and insulting in your responses. People like you are why expats like myself have to work so hard to convince New Zealanders and others that not all Americans are loud, ignorant red-necks who think the world ends at the US border.

paul mitchell said...

Anon, I have not been rude at all. Debating someone that refuses to acknowledge FACTS makes ME look like a moron and I do not like that.

First things first. There is not one single person in the US that is denied medical services at any time, even if they are here illegally. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are LYING. There are no people dropping dead on our streets from any lack of access. Not one person in the US has died because of that.

Also again, the WHO Report added statistics for the costs of R&D into ONE countries total cost for healthcare. The US. Wonder why our costs are higher? Well.....

If you want to talk about cost, the cost for medical services increased 13% across the board when France started theirs. Enough said. (Unless you need that explained to you as well?)

You did not allow for INCREASING the infant mortality rate for the other countries while reducing the IMR for the US. Not only that, ALL other countries discount for low birth weight, the US does not. This is very basic math, dude. Like a 4.90 year old kid can do it.

This issue is not debatable for people that do not want to surrender our own lives to the control of others. Of course, no self-sufficient person wants the least of us to control the best of our lives. That is called philosophy. Quit being such a mooching dumbass, like the 45+% of our country that already gets taxpayer funded medical services. <--That is an insult.

There is a really simple acronym that solves this whole thing, TINSTAAFL. Learn it, Hippie.

Anonymous said...

Paul Mitchell, seems you like to twist the numbers so that they support the point you are trying to make. Just like the Space Shuttle Columbia accident probe. Morton Thiokol tried to jumble up the numbers and present the facts in an order that was favorable the them.

I don't know what kind of shoe fetish or hang up you have, but if someone is barefoot, safe, and happy, let them be. So you don't approve, but how would that affect you anyhow? Wasn't the original topic about lazy parenting?

barefoot4live

paul mitchell said...

How in the world am I twisting the numbers? I stated the facts, if y'all cannot understand them, that is your little red wagon.

Anonymous said...

Can't we all get along? God bless the babies.

Barefoot4life

Anonymous said...

So I'm a hippie eh? Wow, never been called that before. Hell, I've had actual hippies call me a facist. I'm not even a Liberal. I'm pro-death penalty, against gun control, supported staying in Iraq and still support surging in Afghanistan and I think the human caused global warming crowd is nuts.

Not everyone who chooses to walk around barefoot now and then, or supports socialised healthcare is a hippie or a full-on socialist. I want the nanny state to stay out of my life in most instances. But just as I like the government giving me a socialised fire department and police force, I think they should provide medical care as well.

Since I don't live in the US anymore and won't be again, you don't have to worry about me mooching off your tax money. I even buy travel insurance when I go to the States to visit my parents.

Oh and the real fact is that people do die in the US because healthcare isn't free or universal. I know people who have. One good friend of mine was from a very poor family but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. His mom put off going to a doctor for weeks because she couldn't afford it. When she turned yellow her boss finally insisted she go to the hospital. She had breast cancer and her liver had failed. She died a week later. Hospitals will care for you if you are about to die, then send you a bill later. But poor people put off treatment because of the cost and they do die as a result.

paul mitchell said...

Wait, where in the world do I start? Are you like fourteen years old or something? There is NO SUCH THING AS FREE MEDICAL SERVICES anywhere in the world. It doesn't exist. Anyone that thinks that it does is dangerous in their stupidity.

By the way, hippies calling you a fascist is funny as Hell, because what our moron president and the dimbulbs in Congress are proposing is government control of private enterprise. That is the very definition of fascism.

Again, in the US not one single person can be denied any medical services. Anyone that has told you that someone died because of lack of access to medical services is LYING TO YOU.

By the way, the strawman argument of "local government creating fire departments and police departments is socialism" is seriously dumber than the "AGW is happening" argument.

Please refrain from addressing me, you are an idiot and should not be allowed to endanger other people with your sheer and utter lack of intelligence. We are all dumber from you voicing your opinion.

Poo out.

CaptiousNut said...

I live in Boston; it's mid-November...

I'd like to see these barefooters spend a winter here!

Anonymous said...

Well that about does it. I've tried to have a reasoned argument based on the facts here and all you have to offer in return is infantile insults and slurs. You ask if I'm a child when it is you who is behaving like a fourteen year-old. Actually, that's an insult to real fourteen year olds.

Government control of private industry is the defintion of socialism, not fascism! You must be one of the nuts out at those tea party protests accusing Obama of socialism and fascism when the two ideologies are in fact complete OPPOSITES. The first thing fascists did when they got in power was make all trade unions ILLEGAL. They murdered and imprisoned socialists. The middle class and business owners strongly supported the fascists because they were pro-private business and suppressed workers rights. I have a Graduate degree in History and teach high school history and social studies. Which, by the way, is far more rewarding than accounting.

The kids in my class all had a good laugh at the Youtube clips of Tea Party nuts confusing communism, socialism and fascism.

As far as lying about someone dying due to lack of care, that was not some story I heard. I watched it happen, I was at the funeral! It was one of the saddest things I ever saw. Free healthcare isn't totally free of course, we pay for it in higher taxes. And of course there are small fees, the same or lower than any co-pays required by insurers, and only charged to those who can afford them and between age 18 and 65. The bottom line is no one ever goes bankrupt in NZ due to medical bills. Americans come here for elective surgeries because it costs tens of thousands less for many procedures than the same treatment in the US.

I could only laugh when you said you live in Boston. I grew up in the South Shore suburbs there and I can only imagine your disgust with that bastion on liberalism.

Since you also call our Harvard educated, law scholar President a moron, it's clear you have a strange definition of the word.

I won't waste any more time on someone who isn't capable of a rational argument. So go ahead and throw another whining, insult-strewn hissy-fit like a spoiled little child.

CaptiousNut said...

Anon,

I think you are conflating two different people.

I'm the Boston guy; and I'm the author of this blog.

Paul Mitchell is another animal entirely.

Out of curiosity, what South Shore town did you grow up in?

paul mitchell said...

Anon, obviously you are an out of work history teacher if you think that socialism and fascism are opposites. Or hopefully you are.

Like I said, fascism is government CONTROL of PRIVATE enterprise.

Socialism is government OWNERSHIP of all business. There is no private enterprise at all.

I expect you to not know the difference, you think that Stuttering Zebra Jesus is smart. You would.

If you actually teach, you are making kids dumber because you do not even know what fascism or socialism are. Buy a dictionary idiot. It obviously runs in the family, too, if you were at a funeral because someone died when they were too stupid to go to a friggin' hospital where BY LAW they cannot be refused medical care. Such is the nature of morons, they flock together.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Captions Nut! I see that I confused your post with Paul. I assume from your blog that we have quite different political views but I haven't seen anything insulting from you. I have nothing against conservatives, one of my best friends at college worked in the Bush White House on faith based initiatives and for the council of economic advisors. We had many passionate but civil debates over the years.

In answer to your question, I grew up in the town of Randolph, where my family still lives. Boston is a beautiful city, but I just couldn't take another winter there. It doesn't snow in NZ at sea level, which is fine with me.

Paul, I just don't know what to say to you. Joking about a poor woman, a mother, dying is just beyond belief.

Oh and sorry to tell you this but I have a permanent teaching position. Nothing I say will change your warped views. So I will just point out that I have studied history for 5 years at top universities and it is my job to know what fascism and socialism are. Where is your history degree from?

No one should just take my word for anything. Read some history books, look into it. There are many historians with many views, but they all agree that fascism and communism were polar opposites and mortal enemies.

Take a look at the policies of any other western democracy and you will see that Obama's policies are more conservative. And they are nowhere near fascism or communism. If you want to see real modern fascism, look at Putin's Russia. Even that isn't pure fascism, but it's a heck of a lot closer than anything you'll ever see in the USA.

paul mitchell said...

Anon, you do not know what fascism is. I stated exactly what it is. Consult a dictionary. You are wrong, those "top" universities could not even correct what you believe. So, maybe they are not so "top" after all.

And about the woman that died, you are the one that said she was too stupid to go to the hospital. I did not. Again, there is no hospital in the entire United States that can deny medical care to anyone. People that are too stupid to go to the hospital are not the responsibility of our doctors, who are the best in the world.

By the way, a total takeover of the private enterprise, confiscation of generations of income, and growth stifling regulations are BY DEFINITION not conservative, but those "top" universities ought to be able to straighten your wrongness out.

I am done, you are too much of a moron to even attempt to correct you.

Anonymous said...

Paul, you shouldn't be so suprised by the verbal spanking that you just recieved. Why your parents didn't give you a proper spanking is probably why you think you can be so insulting to opposing views. Face it, you don't know everything, which has been clearly demonstrated by your posts in this blog. By being correct on 1 or 2 points doesn't make you right 100% of the time. I thought you knew math better than that???

As I posted earlier concerning the barefoot topic: there is a wealth of knowlege available to us. Quick internet searches, libraries, and schools. Please use them and cross reference your sources. It's hard to get a straight answer to any topic nowdays. Heck, sometimes I have to read extreme liberal and conservative views to find an ounce of truth. The information is out there. Just seek it out and make informative decisions. Also, you will be far more capable of explaining your views without resorting to childish rants and insults in order to defend flawed logic. Good luck :)

Barefoot4life

paul mitchell said...

Barefoot4life, I know that you sign at the bottom, but the commenter's names are at the top. You have me mixed up with Anon.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Anon living in NZ? Then I'm not refering to him. I'm refering to the Moron that verbally bashes him instead of engaging in constructive dialog.

How observant of you to notice that I sign at the bottom.

Barefoot4life

Anonymous said...

To whom it may concern:

I'm trying to understand this sentence written earlier:

"People that are too stupid to go to the hospital are not the responsibility of our doctors, who are the best in the world"

Where would you suggest the sick and injured go. So it's stupid to go to the hospital??? Are you some religious moron that believes in faith healing. Or do you go see the witch doctor?

In your run on sentence I'm trying to figure out who is the best in the world. The people too stupid to go to the hospital or the doctors?

Funny...I seem to recall an article about people who don't have health insurance and must resort to going to the hospital emergency room when they needed health care. The emergency care wasn't free and often the people who utilized the emergency room couldn't afford it. Since they had no insurance, someone had to pay the bill. I can tell you who didn't pick up the tab. The doctors, nurses, Bill Gates, President Bush, Nancy Pelosi, the insurance fairy. No, I believe it was the tax payer that paid the bill of the uninsured people who used the emergency room when they needed health care.

I guess in your case when you walked out of the emergency room after applying a tournaquet around your neck you didn't have to pay. But somewhere the cost of your visit was paid for, if not by you.

Barefoot4life

paul mitchell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
paul mitchell said...

Barefoot4life, your reading comprehension is sooper dooper awesome. The sentence says, "People that are too stupid to go to the hospital are not the responsibility of our doctors, who are the best in the world."

This means that doctors cannot treat who they do not see. Anon said that the old lady died because she did not have access to medical services. In the United States this is not possible because hospitals cannot refuse treatment to anyone, ability to pay or not. My assumption is that she did not go to a hospital when she was sick because Anon said she died. That means, "People that are too stupid to go to the hospital are not the responsibility of our doctors, who are the best in the world."

Good Lord, this is not a debate of opposing ideas, it is me trying to explain basic mathematics to one person, and basic reading comprehension to another.

The fun part? One of them, that cannot understand the written word, thinks that I am LOSING this "debate." No wonder we have a tee-total moron occupying 1600.

Anonymous said...

First off Paul, she wasn't an old woman. She was a 45 year old with a teenage son and daughter. It is correct that hospitals cannot deny service to uninsured patients and the bill does get passed onto taxpayers. However that only happens if the uninsured people have no assets. If they have any money at all they will be required to pay as much of the bill as possible.

So imagine you are a single mother living check to check with a couple kids to feed and you feel off, fatigued and run-down, you have some odd aches and pains. If you have insurance you of course go to the doctor and get all the fancy tests and find out you have cancer. Treatment is quickly begun and you have a fighting chance. But if you have no insurance you have to know any tests are going to be expensive, even the visit to the doctor or emergency room will cost you the money you need for other bills. So you decide it is probably just the flu, or maybe overwork, or just getting old and you put off going to the doctor.

Until of course your skin turns yellow and you have to go to the hospital. Then they of course find the cancer, but it's too late.

In hindsight of course she made a poor decision. But what if she had gone earlier and found out all she had was a cold. Now she wasted hours in an emergency room waiting room and has to borrow money from somewhere to keep the electricity on. Do you really think she would have put off going if she'd thought she had cancer?

The point is people do die because they have no insurance, because they don't get care until they are really sick instead of when they have the early symptoms. Never mind all the preventive care they miss out on.

Please stop insulting my intelligence Paul, it only makes you look petty.

paul mitchell said...

Anon, yet again, the woman did NOT die because she has no insurance, she died because SHE disregarded her own health. This is NOT the fault of insurance companies, nor of our medical services, it was her fault. The truth is the truth.

I have not insulted your intelligence at all, you have proven you have none by your own words.

Anonymous said...

Paul, don't you get it? There are many people who don't have health insurance. Therefore, they only seek medical attention when they feel they ablsoutely need it. Their way of seeking medical attention is by going to the emergency room. If they are suffering from a life threatening condition, it may be too late to take care of it. Anyhow, without health insurance, they can't pay for the treatment. So they could end up dead sooner or later.

The main problem with healthcare in the USA is being able to afford it. Because without it, the medical bills would pile up quicker than s@*t. The current health care debate in America is trying to provide an affordable healthcare plan which would also compete with the health insurance companies. With competion, those health insurance providers would be inclined to lower their prices, making health insurance more affordable to more people.

There are many more issues in regards to health care. Yet there are many instances where people have to choose between paying their bills, putting food on the table, and providing for their families, or forgoing all that for preventive medicine which is priced through the roof. Folks in this position aren't being lazy about their health. They are just trying to get by financially day to day.

Barefoot4life

Anonymous said...

Okay Paul, I'll give you an example of someone who died as a direct result of their lack of insurance. When I was attending George Washington University in Washington DC our university hospital was successfully sued, for the second time apparently, for causing the death of a poor woman.

GWU Hospital had a practice of closing to emergencies for made-up reasons when they heard an ambulance was coming from a poor section of the city and had no identification and thus no insurance card. In this particular case the ambulance was turned away and had to go to DC General Hospital instead, but the woman died en route between the hospitals. Again, this was not an isolated incident, it wasn't the first time GW Hospital did it and it was also shown that Georgetown Hospital and others did the exact same thing.

Why? Because the government doesn't pick up the entire bill for uninsured people, the hospital has to eat some of it and so they find ways of keeping these patients from getting through the doors where they'd have to treat them. GW had to pay out to the family in this case, but you have to wonder how many times they did this in the past and how many people died as a result.

And if you think GWU Hospital is the only one that did this, or DC is the only city where this happens you are being naive.

paul mitchell said...

Anon, that imaginary person did NOT die because of their lack of insurance. Quit being ridiculous. Your anecdotes, while certainly possible, do not even remotely support your point that someone died from lack of insurance coverage.

By the way, in the US, most people call their pre-paid medical plans, "insurance."

The seriously idiotic part about debating morons, that they actually believe our medical services in the US are more expensive than other countries, REFUSE to acknowledge the fact that we have more doctors per capita, more hospitals per capita, and higher survival rates than any other country on the planet. The ways that our system is superior to all others are too numerous to mention, but let's screw it up like France's, mmmmkay? Also, when the R&D costs are removed from our per person costs, our medical system is CHEAPER than most countries.

If you did away with the ridiculous lawsuits from the ambulance chasing attorneys, we would probably have the cheapest medical services delivery on the planet. And the moron, John Edwards, would still be carrying on in the family business of coal-mining. But, even Edwards is not stupid enough to walk around barefoot all the time.

Anonymous said...

Paul, I don't like the tone of your message :(

Barefoot4life

Anonymous said...

First off the US does not have the most doctors per capita in the world. You must make up facts to suit your views or cherry-pick them from right-wing websites. According to several sources I checked, including the University of California and the OECD report, the US has the 52nd highest number of doctors per capita at 2.3/1,000. That is not to say that socialist systems have higher numbers of doctors, NZ is ranked 55th and Canada and the UK are also ranked behind the US. I am just pointing out Paul's facts are incorrect.

Also according to the OECD, the US has fewer acute care hospital beds than all but 4 of the OECD nations. Here is a link to an article on Forbes listing some of these figures.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html

paul mitchell said...

Anon. thanks for linking one more article that quotes the WHO Report that I have proven to be wrong numerous times, but oh Hell, just keep digging.

Again, I have linked my take down of the Who Report and have proven that mathematics does not support your BELIEF in socialism.

paul mitchell said...

Also, you might want to check your articles a little more carefully before linking, too. The article states specifically that the main reason for the increasing costs in medical services is the GOVERNMENT RUN Medicare.

So, you continue to help make MY POINT because you do not understand even the things that you link.

CaptiousNut said...

Tiger Woods, barefoot scofflaw!

Officers are examining whether any crime was committed, and looking into suggestions that Woods may have been driving without shoes, which is ILLEGAL in Florida, and that he may have been assaulted by his golf club-wielding wife, Elin Nordegren, before the crash.

link

paul mitchell said...

That is too funny.

My WV word is "unicor" which I find humorous.

Anonymous said...

The ignorance still persists. This time with the writer of the story about Tiger Woods and his little car accident. The article states it is illegal to drive barefoot in Florida.

How stupid could one be to think that driving barefoot is illegal. Why in the world would it be illegal????

Here is a link from someone who reasearched the issue of driving barefoot in the U.S.A. and Canada. Except for the 7 states which hadn't written back, every response confirmed there is NO LAW AGAINST DRIVING BAREFOOT!

http://tafkac.org/legal/driving.barefoot/driving_barefoot.html

Check it out. The letters are posted. Additionally, if one should lose sleep about whether it is legal to drive barefoot, just read your states DMV guidebook. Even better yet, write the DMV.

If I may stray from the topic a bit, the same is true for shopping or dinning barefoot. In yahoo groups, SBL (society for barefoot living) has letters from every state health department confirming it is perfectly legal to enter a business or restaraunt barefoot.

It is unfortunate that many people don't realize the benifits and joys of walking barefoot. Even more unfortunate is the fact there are so many negative myths against walking barefoot that are completely unfounded, debunked but continuously spread as if fact.

Barefoot4life

paul mitchell said...

I just wrote an e-mail to my state representative and state senator URGING them to do something about the barefoot scofflaws on our state highways. It's not like those guys in the state house are doing anything else.

I'll keep you updated, Dean Kirby, my state senator owns a shoe store.

no shoes mom said...

This is one of the dumbest complaints I've ever seen...I don't care that you don't like seeing kids with no shoes on--you don't, I do, but that's just a matter of taste. But to jump to the conclusion that it has to do with parents not enforcing "discipline" is simply nuts and insulting. Some of us are perfectly capable of disciplining our kids, and simply like the sight of kids playing barefooted. I like the idea of barefooted kids in an almost aesthetic sense. There is no connection at all with "discipline" or lack of it.

paul mitchell said...

There is simply no way in Hell that this conversation is actually happening. Barefoot Nazis are hilarious.

Anonymous said...

This is getting funny, yes, but is anyone that posted comments here know that going barefoot in the good 'ol USA was just as common as in NZ is today? That was during the late 1960s and early 1970s, the fad hit the mainstream, and plenty of young people were going barefoot everywhere, stores, malls, any public place on a nice summer day. And though the hippies may have made it popular, by the early 1970s lots of ordinary, even well-to-do young people were doing it, even in New York City. Don't believe it? Read the New York Times article from September 1, 1970, entitled "Shoelessness on the Rise". The woman interviewed is a white collar professional an goes shopping barefoot in expensive stores. I saw stuff like that all the time back then. Mostly young women though. Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it....etc, etc.

paul mitchell said...

So, are those barefoot people repeating history or are the normal people repeating history?

CaptiousNut said...

No Shoes Mom,

Question here:

Are you into spanking?

Anonymous said...

Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded.

paul mitchell said...

^^Holy CRAP!!!^^^ Barry Obama commented!

Anonymous said...

Myself and other barefooters aren't trying to argue or prove someone wrong here. Early in this blog there was a comment connecting bad parenting with letting children play barefoot outside.

There are many negative myths about walking barefoot. When someone who is passionate about walking barefoot and has experience doing it sees such a negative myth, they are compelled to correct it.

It isn't just about personal preferance. There is plenty of science and information to support the healthiness of walking barefoot. If a website link isn't provided, then anyone can simply look it up for themselves.

The only ones who look retarded are the ones who are closed minded, spread myths and preconceptions and ignore proven science, even when presented with the facts.

Barefoot4life

paul mitchell said...

Barefoot4life, I agree with your assessment. Enjoy your Fred Flintstone feet and let us normal folks enjoy wearing shoes and not filthy-ing up the place.

Rey said...

LOL
This cracks me up but it sure stirred up a lot of comments didn't it :-)
Hope you asked my friend permission to use his image ;-/

Anonymous said...

What a pity to see shod children playing in summer!