If You Have to Hash Out the Duggars VS the Mini-Mart Here's the Spot

Please let's keep the Josie thread for Josie items. Use this one, please, for the Duggars' opposition to approval of the alcohol license.

209 comments:

1 – 200 of 209   Newer›   Newest»
Pearlo said...

What's the story with the mini mart?

Anonymous said...

Michelle Duggars protests beer permit.

preemie mom said...

The video was posted to that website on the 17th (yesterday). Michelle wasn't outside of the mini mart protesting.

Where does it say she was released from the hospital and then went onto a protest meeting?

Anonymous said...

I'm suprised she can even think about protesting anything right now. What weird timing.

MartinMamma said...

The article actually says she went to the board meeting and was crying about how she didn't want the beer near her children. She then did a phone interview. It's nice to see she has her priorities straight.

http://www.4029tv.com/news/22001106/detail.html

Debra said...

I was very surprised to hear that Michelle had the energy to attend this meeting so soon after her emergency C-section.

While I am also a Christian, I would think that Michelle had more pressing matters to attend to, i.e., the survival of her newest little daughter.

My prayers are that little Josie will survive and thrive.

Anonymous said...

Michelle needs to worry about her baby instead of this.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't this kind of show that she does kind of have things messed up?

When I was in first grade (many many moons ago) I was in the hospital for a week, my mom stayed with me the whole time. The only time she left me was when I was getting blood drawn, she deathly afraid of needles, and when my dad left to go home. My three siblings were at home and they are five, six, and seven years older than me.

It is wonderful that Michelle was released, but why not take that time to run home, or I'm sure they know someone with a plane, fly home and see the other kids for a while?

For that reason alone I want to flick her in the head :) (I do that to my husband when he's not paying attention when he should be)

Is it really that important to block a beer license?

Digger said...

They said they will be selling wine and beer at the local Walmarts. The Duggars love to shop and sell their book at Walmart. I'm wondering if they will be crying at their doors soon.

Laura said...

I just can't believe that Wal Mart is fine, but EZ Mart? I live in the area, and there are plenty of other places along Sunset where you can buy alcohol. And I guess they think that everybody is just like them with so many children that they never eat out, because you can get alcohol at just about every restaurant in the area, too.

The next time someone asks me why I can't just leave the Duggars alone because they aren't hurting anyone, I am going to say that I'll leave them alone when they leave everyone else alone, too!

Ollie said...

Michelle should have stayed with Josie or gone home to tend to her other children, I'm sure the younger ones are probably very confused right now and would benefit from some time with mommy. Why couldn't Josh, Anna, John-David, or Jana gone to speak at the meeting if as a family they feel so strongly about this? It would have been a good learning experience for them as well.
I agree that Michelle needs to get her priorities in order, but then I am willing to cut her a little slack. The woman did just give birth to a premie and is probably emotionally exhausted and not thinking clearly. I worry that she was crying at the meeting, I doubt she was genuinely that upset over beer being sold at Walmart.
I'm not a psychologist by any means, but having lost a daughter at birth and talking to others with similar experiences I know it is not uncommon to go into a state of shock. You just stop feeling and keeping going along like everything is normal as a coping method to help deal with the pain, until it eventually hits you and you break down. In short, what Michelle needs now is understanding, not judgement. I will continue to keep her and baby Josie in my prayers.

Anonymous said...

This seems like nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from little Josie's early arrival,along with any ensuing blame that may be cast their way for choosing not to use birth control at an advanced age.
Just wondering if they may have been advised to do this.Possibly so,IMO.

Anonymous said...

My gut tells me this incident is because Michelle is so distraught over Josie she has to go out and help other children. We've all been there, when a loved one is suffering and there is nothing you can do, all you want to do is save others.

I just hope she doesn't view Josie's unorthodox arrival as a punishment from God. If there is anyone sweeter than Michelle Duggar, I don't know who that could be!

pumpkin said...

Does anyone else find it just incredibly strange? I mean, the woman just went through a major surgery, a physical and emotional trauma, and now has a child in the hospital, not to mention the other17 kids still living at home.

I think perhaps she is emotionally confused and sees this as an outlet for those emotions.

Sheesh, who really cares if a store sells beer or not.

Anonymous said...

She has a micro-premie in the hospital, in questionable condition.

She has a baby at home, just turning one.

She has at least four other children celebrating birthdays in the next few weeks (Jer, Jed, Jana, JD).

It is Xmas season

She just had two surgeries.

She has 16 children at home who need her, including the 1 year old, a two year old, a four year old and a five year old. All the kids must be awfully confused and scared after their mom was airlifted to a hospital and their newest sister was born early.

She has a new granddaughter.

And, with all that, she choses to spend her time at an alcohol control board meeting, SIX DAYS after giving birth?

Doesn't she want to be with Josie? Doesn't she want to be with her other kids?

BigFan said...

Ollie said:
"I agree that Michelle needs to get her priorities in order, but then I am willing to cut her a little slack. The woman did just give birth to a premie and is probably emotionally exhausted and not thinking clearly. I worry that she was crying at the meeting, I doubt she was genuinely that upset over beer being sold at Walmart.
I'm not a psychologist by any means, but having lost a daughter at birth and talking to others with similar experiences I know it is not uncommon to go into a state of shock. You just stop feeling and keeping going along like everything is normal as a coping method to help deal with the pain, until it eventually hits you and you break down. In short, what Michelle needs now is understanding, not judgement."
*******************************

My sentiments exactly regarding Michelle's state of mind. Maybe she was just searching for something that felt *normal*? When things are in an emotional upheaval like that, it is definitely common to latch on to something else to pour your built up emotions into.
I feel sorry for her. Dealing with this is an incredibly hard thing for anyone, let alone someone in the public eye who has already been ridiculed for having so many children. She probably just needed an outlet and the EZ Mart happened to get it.

Midwest Mom said...

I'm sure the mini-mart sells condoms.
Why wasn't Michelle protesting that also, since she doesn't believe in birth control.....?

And her comment about it being "in the reach of children"..? It's not like the store clerk is going to allow little 6-year-old Johnny to walk up to the beer cooler, swipe a cold one, take it to the counter, pay for it, and walk out the door...

The whole thing just lacks reality for me. What world does she live in?

Kidznpupz said...

I have to say first of all that I am a non drinker by personal choice not religious reasons. Alcohol is a legal drug. I don't think the Duggars or anyone else has the right to impose their views on others when a law isn't being violated. Both the Duggars and the Bates need to trust that they have instilled their values to the best of their abilities in their children and that they won't go running down the street for a beer just because the EZ mart sells it.
One your first day home from the hospital Michelle needs to be tending to her children and celebrating her daughter Jordyn's birthday. If she doesn't want to be at home then she needs to be by Josie's side giving all the positive energy she can to that struggling child.

preemie mom said...

I know it sounds like I'm a die hard Duggar fan but honestly I am not. I like the Duggars. I admire them for many reasons but I disagree with them on many fronts as well. (I think Bill Gothard is nuts). I was raised conservative but am pretty liberal in my political opinions. I would also go to bat for someone who believed something different from me if their freedoms were being questioned.
All that to say.....I don't think Michelle was out of line to protest this mini mart selling liquor. It may be a zoning thing. It's not like Michelle is out protesting the sale of Cosmo magazines or even cigarettes. She is protesting the sale of alcohol in her area. (I noticed people saying she should be back home but she WAS back home. This was in or near Springdale where they live).
Now, I may have some issue with her if she was out on some crusade but this was one isolated incident. Perhaps, she is dealing with so much crap right now, that she needs some distraction. Perhaps this issue has been ongoing and something her and JB have been working on for several months. IDK, but she has a right to protest the alcohol sale. just my 2cents.

preemie mom said...

Midwest Mom, I see what you're saying but underage alcohol sales but it does happen. It happens more in mini marts too.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5321a2.htm

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

Doesn't she want to be with Josie? Doesn't she want to be with her other kids?

I think she has been bitten by the Kate Gosselin bug.Michelle is famous now and likes the spotlight. The spotlight doesn't shine on moms who stay at home and take care of their children.

BigFan said...

"I think she has been bitten by the Kate Gosselin bug.Michelle is famous now and likes the spotlight. The spotlight doesn't shine on moms who stay at home and take care of their children."
********************************

It seems to me that Kate is all about propagating her own image and story, but with Michelle, I don't see it as a limelight chasing as much as just an emotional outlet over something she is passionate about.
Maybe not the best choice given the circumstances, but again, consider her state of mind.

Digger said...

I'm pretty sure that JB demanded Michelle to speak at the meeting feeling that they would listen to a mother with a sick child better then him. Michelle can't say no to her husband. She doesn't have that kind of freedom.

Enough with the Multiples said...

re: She has a micro-premie in the hospital, in questionable condition.

She has a baby at home, just turning one.

She has at least four other children celebrating birthdays in the next few weeks (Jer, Jed, Jana, JD).

It is Xmas season

She just had two surgeries.

She has 16 children at home who need her, including the 1 year old, a two year old, a four year old and a five year old. All the kids must be awfully confused and scared after their mom was airlifted to a hospital and their newest sister was born early.

She has a new granddaughter.

And, with all that, she choses to spend her time at an alcohol control board meeting, SIX DAYS after giving birth?

Doesn't she want to be with Josie? Doesn't she want to be with her other kids?
_____________________________

I couldn't have said that any better myself!

Wonder how they will spin all this when new episodes of the show resume???

kalyse86 said...

“I have to say first of all that I am a non drinker by personal choice not religious reasons. Alcohol is a legal drug. I don't think the Duggars or anyone else has the right to impose their views on others when a law isn't being violated. Both the Duggars and the Bates need to trust that they have instilled their values to the best of their abilities in their children and that they won't go running down the street for a beer just because the EZ mart sells it.
One your first day home from the hospital Michelle needs to be tending to her children and celebrating her daughter Jordyn's birthday. If she doesn't want to be at home then she needs to be by Josie's side giving all the positive energy she can to that struggling child.”

Excellent post! I couldn’t have said it better. I don’t drink nor do I smoke. In fact I HATE cigarettes and the smell of them. BUT, as much as I despise cigarettes, I do not think it would be fair of me to go to a store and protest the sell of cigarettes just because I don’t like them. I simply won’t buy them. Not a big deal. It is not illegal to drink alcohol so why on earth does she feel the need to protest alcohol being sold at CONVENIENCE store just because she doesn’t agree with it? As someone else posted, she doesn’t believe in birth control either, so does that mean they can’t sell condoms there either? Seriously, this is just beyond ridiculous.

My heart, thoughts, and prayers go out to little Josie. I just watched the documentary Little Man, and I pray Josie will have a good outcome after all this.

roddma said...

I feel strongly about alcohol too but this would be the last thing on my mind in their situation. A few friends and an Uncle of mine paid the price because they wouldnt give up the habit but not just alcohol played a part. It is more than a religious issue with me. Anything can be taken too far like eating too much chocolate and French fries. Many cook with wine and beer. Just because someone drinks doesnt mean they get drunk. What about all the other illicit drugs running rampant? I would be more worried about a child getting those.

Michelle shouldnt even be up after two abdominal surgeries. You run the risk of tearing the scars. It is a matter of priorites here.

Jane in California said...

Sounds like the Duggars concerns got more weight simply because of who they are -- that's favoritism and it isn't fair, no matter what. Other markets who were also seeking permits, got their requests approved. This mini-mart had heard of no objections until the Duggars showed up.

The ability to sell beer and wine would have helped these small business owners make a better profit off their business. It's not right that the Duggars can take that away from these people, simply because they have the misfortune to be in business in the vicinity of the Duggars.

I think people should have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs. But this goes beyond that - and into interfering with a person's right to make a lawful living. This is insisting that others who have differing beliefs be inconvenienced to make you happy.

It saddens me to think that JB didn't say "Michelle, you need to stay home and take care of yourself. I'll go speak out, and take a couple of our oldest children. But you need to take care of yourself right now - that's more important than anything." That he didn't do that - speaks volumes to me. And makes me sad for both of them.

Amanda said...

preemie mom said...

I noticed people saying she should be back home but she WAS back home. This was in or near Springdale where they live

_____________________________________


Not to argue with you but the ABC Board is in Little Rock. They probably met 15 or 20 minutes away from UAMS.

The EZ Mart is in Springdale...she did not protest at the EZ Mart.

Being in Western AR this was the Big Story on the local news

Nikki said...

Has it occurred to anyone that Michelle was protesting the beer permit not because she doesn't like beer, but because of safety issues? Maybe she doesn't want teenagers and adults picking up beer and driving around so close to where she lives. Maybe she feels like she's looking out for her family.

abbie said...

What does she care if beer or any other alcohol is sold nearby, if she raises her children not to consume alcohol then what does it matter where it is sold?

And yes, WHY isn't she home healing from her very recent c-section. Is she losing the good sense I used to think she had?

Midwest Mom said...

I would like the "real truth" from Michelle Duggar someday about why she chose to protest a license for THIS PARTICULAR MINI-MART and not the others with pending applications.

I smell a rat.

HandsOnMom said...

I'm sorry but IMO this can't be spun away this time. What a strange thing to choose to do (and I am assuming she CHOSE, and was not told to do it by anyone?? Seeing as she is an adult)---Anyway, when you have just been released. A) I was sore and infected after my C-Section, had NO inclination to go do such a thing, even a trip to grocery was handled by family. (thank you Family) B) OK even IF she can't logistically stay w/Josie 24/7, where is Plan B? WITH HER OTHER KIDS, at their HOME. And wasn't the one-year-old BABY having a bday that same day? A baby not seen her mother in what? 2 weeks? COme on Michelle, Jordyn IS a baby too. Oh, and you have ***16 others *** in the home as well! Need a mom, too. (well Maybe not Josh but that means there's 15 others)
COme on!
********
ANd one other think jumped out at me: She was quoted as saying (paraphrase) she doesn't want beer near her children. Um Michelle, it's called Parenting, you CHOOSE what influences to allow near your kids; as much as you can, that means your home and property, and since you homeschool, you don't have to "worry" about those other nasty kids in the community . SO.....what chance do beer (or anything else) have to be "near your kids?" Just say No! (or tell Jana or Jessa, whoever is guiding the young ones that day, to say "no") Ok?

HandsOnMom said...

It saddens me to think that JB didn't say "Michelle, you need to stay home and take care of yourself. I'll go speak out, and take a couple of our oldest children. But you need to take care of yourself right now - that's more important than anything." That he didn't do that - speaks volumes to me. And makes me sad for both of them.

12/19/2009 4:39 PM
*******************
Jane in CA: Yes! And what is more, I got to thinking how my own husband would react. We are not on TV advertising our PDA for the world to see, but that doesn't mean he doesn't love me and care for my welfare any less than the demonstrative Jim Bob SUPPOSEDLY cares for Michelle...NO WAY would my husband LET me go to some meeting or any other such thing when he was worried for my health. And those of you who say "well it's her emotional state; she is confused" Even MORE reason for JB (the Head of his Household) to step forward and think FOR her right now--for her WELFARE ,esp. if she is confused! Home in bed or on the couch, reading to her OTHER KIDS is the most she should do. OR back at the hosp with Josie.
I have seen firsthand how much my husband puts my welfare first, and yes I have had a premature birth in our past as well as Michelle (our daughter died). ALong with other things, such as VERY high risk pregnancies. I have seen him time and again care for my health when I needed an advocate, or outright someone to lean on.
Is J.B . being that person for Michelle????? IMO; no!
What is important to this man? I dont' get it. Sorry.

starry night said...

I'm sincerely sorry to hear about the premature birth of Josie. That said, I think Michelle and Bob see themselves as some sort of religious gurus and thus, think they should advocate against drinking. I saw them advocating for having lots of children on the show where they were interviewed by College kids. They said they see their family as an example. Sadly, I bet this means they'll continue to have kids indefinitely. Will they then be an example for how to raise disabled, or special needs, or Downs Syndrome kids? I wouldn't put it past them. Seems like they view everthing that happens as God's will --aand their existing kids just have to handle whatever the parents put on their plate.

starry said...

Why are they continuing to have so many kids? It's insane! What about the Downs syndrome kids and other children with special needs that are so much more likely when you are over 40? Is this in their plans? Seems like it is.

Anonymous said...

One thing that explains the Duggars mindset about this is that they truly believe that they are on a mission from God.

They feel that God has allowed them the forum of TV to share their faith and be a voice for righteousness, for HIM. (Not their righteousness, but the righteousness and grace of Jesus Christ.)

So I think there is (to them) a sense of them feeling driven to do things they feel they are doing for God, in that they feel they MUST speak out and do things they might not otherwise do.

In Evangelical circles, that mindset lends itself to believing that there is a call from God on all of their lives, to do some kind of greater good. But there is no greater good to my mind than fulfilling your God given responsibilities FIRST.

I don't think God is calling people to do anything beyond their prescribed duties as outlined in Scripture.

For instance, Michelle has said she is called to be a mother and the Lord placed that desire in her heart. I can believe that. And so to follow that to its logical conclusion, she needs to stay at home and be a mother to her children.

No one would doubt that evangelist Billy Sunday had a tremendous impact for the Lord, leading many people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. And his wife was always with him. That meant that their children were often left with other caretakers and not with their parents.

The Sunday's lost their 4 children,(so to speak) who between them contracted 9 marriages. None of their children lived past the age of 42 and it cost Billy Sunday a pretty penny to keep the scandals about his children hidden.

I guess I am just saying that if God has called Michelle to be a mother, then perhaps a better use of her time would be to spend it with and on her children.

CappuccinoLife said...

I know she spoke on the phone and we heard that. No reason she couldn't have been *at home* for that.

I'm waiting, though, for something more than "I was told she was at the meeting...I was told she was crying..."

I smell a rat too. But it might be the media type. This *is* very bizarre. If it is exactly as portrayed, I'll be very disappointed in the Duggars. But I'd like to see a little more on this beyond "I heard..."

Anonymous said...

The person who spoke about the Duggars being there worked at the mini mark. I imagine someone who worked at the mini mart would also be at the meeting and would know that they were there and pass on the information to the other people who worked there.

It makes no sense and serves no purpose for someone to lie about the Duggars being at the meeting.

Passing Through said...

"But I'd like to see a little more on this beyond "I heard..."

The news report state that she went to the board meeting to testify. She then later spoke on the phone to reporters.
So she did both.

On the other hand said...

Nikki said...
"Has it occurred to anyone that Michelle was protesting the beer permit not because she doesn't like beer, but because of safety issues? Maybe she doesn't want teenagers and adults picking up beer and driving around so close to where she lives. Maybe she feels like she's looking out for her family."

The same thing crossed my mind. I watched the news video where they played part of her phone interview and she said she didn't want kids and teenagers in the community having access to beer close to her home. The timing is bad, but with all this blasting of Mrs. Duggar going on, I think maybe she thinks she's trying to keep her community safer for her children. People accuse her of not caring about her already-born children, but it seems like she was trying to look out for them here.

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Michelle sees herself as a media star. She talks about her "producer", and is described in the media as a "reality TV star".

I think she is turning into Kate Gosselin, who also neglected her children. Michelle has been neglecting her children for years, but to leave a sick baby in the hospital and not go home to her one year old, and the rest of the toddlers and preschoolers? Not to mention all the other kids?

Sometimes I think Michelle is a mother in name only. If she thinks her protesting beer at a mini mart is going to protect her kids, she and Jim Bob have done a darn poor job of cloistering them.

mamawama said...

As a mother who has had a baby in the NICU, right now, there is nothing you can do but sit up there are stare at them. They do not let you pick up a 25 weeker and hold them at will. Also, how long does it take to celebrate a birthday? Especially for a 1 yo? I don't even do birthday parties until they turn about 4 or 5 because they don't remember them. So, it takes maybe an hour to give them some gifts, and let the older kids eat some cake.

But if you allow liquor to be sold near you, this could lead to strip clubs and all kinds of crazy things that you don't want near your home. A person like Michelle, with public access, could make a big stir at a meeting.

I trust the Duggars judgement, and without knowing all the details, I assume that they made the best decision with what to do with that hour of their lives.

Anonymous said...

Selling beer leads to strip clubs, such paranoia. We live in an area where alcohol is sold in convenient food marts and we don't have strip clubs in our county. Buying and drinking alcohol is not illegal and just because someone doesn't believe in it and doesn't drink shouldn't have such control over what others do.

I understand not being at the hospital just staring at your preemie in the NICU, there really isn't much that can be done, however she has 17 other children at home, many still young and one that is still a baby that she needs to be taking care of.

I do agree that Michelle could make a stir at a meeting and it seems like she did.

Snap! said...

I don't understand why the Duggars are against alcohol. Didn't Jesus drink wine? Why can't the adults have a bit of alcohol? I live in a very liberal area- so I am having a
hard time understanding why they are so against it.

CappuccinoLife said...

"It makes no sense and serves no purpose for someone to lie about the Duggars being at the meeting."

Of course it makes no sense. But in my life, I have seen a great deal of gossip and rumor perpetuated that made absolutely no sense either. It was still false information and hurtful to the people it targeted.

indecisive or what said...

The Duggars want more government control in their lives. I'm confused. Wow, pick and choose.

Anonymous said...

In the South, there is somewhat of a different view about drinking. Many counties are still dry, where selling booze is not even allowed.

Anonymous said...

To the poster who mentioned that alcohol leads to strip clubs and other things... I'm a conservative Christian, and I love the Duggars. I can understand a person's desire to advocate for something in which he/she strongly believes. However, I believe that this alcohol thing was a little off - at least the timing was.

Like other posters, I believe the Duggars have missed the boat in many respects when it comes to attempting to shield their kids from all things evil (which can't be done forever), rather than instilling values in their children and trusting in their parenting. I'm not sure whether JB and M are worried about their own children or about the effect on the neighborhood. If they are worried about their own children, I believe this is the wrong way to address that concern. If they're worried about the possibility of the neighborhood changing and strip clubs, etc. emerging as a result... I have to say that I live in a residential area that is ALL developments and neighborhoods. There's a convenience store on the corner that does sell alcohol, but I really haven't seen any negative effects or changes as a result. I think what people should take into consideration is that this a convenience store, not a bar. People don't drink the alcohol at the convenience store. If the Duggars are worried about the possibility of people driving drunk or having parties in their own houses - they will simply go to the next corner to buy the alcohol. In terms of a major change in the neighborhood, though, I just don't see this happening. A strip club won't open up just because people can buy alcohol at the gas station. A bar may be a different story, but in this case, they have to take the alcohol elsewhere to drink it, anyway.
-Christina

mamawama said...

My point is that we know very little about the meeting etc. and yet all these judgments are being thrown around.

I am guessing it has to do with zoning laws. It is common for people to protest when alcohol permits are being brought to their areas. It does bring in a different sort of crowd. Isn't that just obvious?

Ollie said...

Re: Didn't Jesus drink wine?

According to Anna's father in the wedding episode he, and presumably the Duggars, believe that Jesus actually drank grape juice. Google "wine in the bible" and it will take you to an article from a book of the same name that argues in great depth this idea.

Personally, I don't think this interpretation is correct. I was raised Catholic and was given wine in church from an early age. When I asked my husband, he's a protestant minister, about it he said something about the wording in the Hebrew translation of the Bible being very specific in mentioning that the wine was fermented, and that scholars are unsure if it was even possible to create unfermented grape juice at the time. Furthermore the Bible advocates drinking wine in moderate, the only time it is not condoned is when it is consumed in excess.

I think the Duggars aversion to alcohol is partly due to their "all or nothing" approach to life. Look at all the things they prohibit in their home (i.e. kissing before marriage, surfing the internet, dancing, modern music, etc.) simply because it could, but usually doesn't, lead to immoral behavior. It almost seems like they don't think they have the self-control to avoid temptation so they must completely eliminate anything that could lead to even the occasion of sin from their lives, leaving them living in a bubble of sorts. Anyway, that's just my take on it.

Anonymous said...

This was a public meeting and the minutes are probably available for anyone to read. If someone was not telling the truth about what the Duggars said or if they were even there, it would be easy to find out.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

I think it is commendable that she took her time to attend this meeting. She is trying to make it a safer world for her new born baby.

Midwest Mom said...

I did a little research because I couldn't understand why Mrs. Duggar would object to the EZ Marts selling beer but not the WalMart.

Here are links to two Decision Documents from the State of Arkansas Alcohol Control Board. One is from Sept'09, the other from Dec.'09.

http://www.dfa.arkansas.gov
/offices/abc/Documents/abc_dd0909.pdf

http://www.dfa.arkansas.gov
/offices/abc/Documents/abc_dd1209.pdf

The SEPTEMBER document, Page 2, shows licenses were REFUSED for not one, but TWO E-Z Marts in the Springdale area, one on West Sunset Avenue, the other on East Robinson Avenue.

On Page 7 of this same September document, a license was also refused for the Phoenix Stores in Tontitown.

The Duggars live in Tontitown, right?

The common link in all three denials, if you read the documents, is that Arkansas State Rep Jon Woods "objected" in ALL THREE license applications that were eventually denied (the 2 EZMarts & the Phoenix store).

So you might ask, who is Jon Woods?

Jon Woods is the 93rd district rep out of the Arkansas state legislature and he is from Springdale.
Jim Bob Duggar also was a state representative in Arkansas.

And.....Rep. Woods put out a twitter message on the birth of Josie Duggar:
http://twitter.com/Jon_Woods/status/6572369290

And...one of the top 6 political contributors to Rep. Woods' 2008 campaign was WalMart:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Jon_Woods

So of course, WalMart got their permits (December pdf document shows WalMarts in Walmarts in Sherwood, Maumelle, North Little Rock, two stores in Little Rock, were approved for licenses, and the September pdf document shows a Sams Club in Fayetteville was approved), but the two EZ Marts in Springdale were denied as well as the Phoenix Store in Tontitown.

Rep. Woods knows the Duggars well enough to put out a personal tweet about them upon the birth of little Josie. The Duggars probably asked Rep. Woods to object to the liquor permits. Rep. Woods did so pertaining to the EZ Marts & Phoenix in Tontitown, but wouldn't do it for the WalMarts because WalMart contributed to his 2008 campaign.

Interesting. Very interesting.

Beedageeda said...

Snap! said...
I don't understand why the Duggars are against alcohol. Didn't Jesus drink wine? Why can't the adults have a bit of alcohol? I live in a very liberal area- so I am having a
hard time understanding why they are so against it.
____________
Snap, to answer your question...
According to what Mr. Keller said when preparing for J and A's wedding, Jesus didn't turn water into wine at the wedding at Cana rather, he turned it into grape juice. And all the times that Jesus drank wine, it was the same: GRAPE JUICE.

But that makes me ask, then, sir, why does the BIBLE say WINE? I'm a Christian. It disturbs me how selective they are when using the Bible as a reference on how to live their lifestyle.
I have no issue with their personal choice of abstaining from drinking...but, please, don't retranslate the Bible to do it.

Anonymous said...

When has M been a voice in local politics? My guess is never. So why speak up now?

My guess is that the Duggars need to keep their name in the news or risk losing their ticket on the TLC gravy train. This is the simple calculus (because real calculus is out of the question) of vanity and greed. And, I suspect, this latest stunt is just the beginning.

Midwest Mom said...

Oh, and two more things I forgot to mention in my prior post about Arkansas Rep Jon Woods objecting to the liquor sales in/near Duggar territory (Springdale/Tontitown):

1. Arkansas State Representative Jon Woods is a member of a rock band called "A Good Fight" and the band plays their music in bars in Fayetteville.
Yes, bars that serve *gasp* BEER.

http://www.agoodfight.net/

http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2009/04/08/flyer-profile-a-good-fight/

2. Representative Jon Woods is rep from the exact same district previously held by Jim Bob Duggar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Jon_Woods

So, he objects to beer sold near the Duggars, but not beer in general, right?

kjtallison said...

http://www.4029tv.com/news/22001106/detail.html

This is the actual article written about Michelle Duggar being there in person to protest a beer license.

Ravello said...

Just when I think reality TV cannot get any stranger, Michelle is involved in a political issue 6 days post op from an emergency C section. Not long before that she was air flighted to a high level hospital with pre eclampsia and hypertension, then had a micro preemie. I agree there is not a lot she can do for the baby in NICU but what about Jordyn Grace? Is Jordyn a year old yet? What about Jennifer, Johanna and all the other kids, big and small. What about taking care of yourself? Michelle has 19 children, only one is married and launched into the world. Scratching my head. Did she really appear in person? I would understand sending a letter.

Jane in California said...

Thank you for the information Midwest Mom. It is indeed interesting when you begin to connect the dots. I imagine Wal-Mart doesn't mind the fact that their tiny little competitors got left out in the cold on this issue either.

Really, it's rather shameful of the Duggars to decide that business owners are going to have to struggle rather than sell beer or wine LEGALLY on their premises, to adults of lawful age to purchase it.

It is one thing to hold certain religious beliefs; but it is quite another to negatively impact someone's living in order to impose your beliefs on them. It is selective application and it's also good ole boys network in action. Somehow I doubt that Jesus Christ would approve.

I feel sorry for those mini mart owners who have the misfortune to live near the Duggars. I hope they can still make a halfway decent living, but no thanks to the Duggars. What do you want to bet the Duggars don't even shop at either one of the mini-marts who got their license applications turned down, but travel to Wal-Mart regularly instead?

Jane in California said...

Anonymous said...

Selling beer leads to strip clubs, such paranoia. We live in an area where alcohol is sold in convenient food marts and we don't have strip clubs in our county. Buying and drinking alcohol is not illegal and just because someone doesn't believe in it and doesn't drink shouldn't have such control over what others do.
* * *

I live in a wine growing (and selling) region in California. If it were true that having lawful access to wine or other spirits leads to strip clubs, degenerate behavior and high crime -- then my county ought to be awash in all those things. After all, we've been producing and selling wine for decades, here in our own county and all over the states and the world.

It's simply not true. We don't have a single strip club in our entire county, nor in any of the neighboring counties. I think you have to go two counties over, or maybe into San Francisco for something of that nature. We have our crimes, but overall I feel very safe in my community. I've left my door unlocked once all night, and nothing happened. some of my neighbors leave their doors unlocked if they go out to run errands during the day - safe. There is a convenience mart right across the street from me that sells alcohol, cigarettes and food. It's a perfectly respectable business and you don't see drunks lurching around in the parking lot, or even any loitering of any kind, except for a homeless guy that panhandles at the opposite corner (and he is always very respectful and polite).

All this is to say that the Duggars are searching for excuses for their imposition of beliefs on others. They don't happen to be valid excuses and I am disturbed that they were allowed to interfere with the lawful business of others (thereby affecting their financial livelihood).

They do indeed seem very fearful that if they are exposed to temptation, they will not be able to withstand giving in. I'm surprised - I thought they had stronger faith than that.

Jane in California said...

Nikki said...
"Has it occurred to anyone that Michelle was protesting the beer permit not because she doesn't like beer, but because of safety issues? Maybe she doesn't want teenagers and adults picking up beer and driving around so close to where she lives. Maybe she feels like she's looking out for her family."
* * * *

I didn't know the legal drinking age in Arkansas, so I Googled it. It is 21. Why is there a presumption that the mini-mart, after having jumped through the many hoops and legalities of obtaining a permit to sell beer and wine (not to mention the expense involved) would lightly jeopardize that by selling it to minors?

It is much more likely that they will be vigilant because they want the extra income that sales of beer and wine will generate for their small (likely family owned) business.

Furthermore, there also seems to be a presumption that people over the age of 21, after purchasing a bottle of wine or a six-pack of beer, will climb into their vehicles, open that beverage immediately, consume it while driving, and proceed to drive recklessly. Could it be more possible that an adult over the age of 21 might not want to risk his or her license, jail time, expensive fines or attorneys fees - and will instead drive home or to the home of a friend, where they will then lawfully consume that beverage in a responsible manner?

No, the Duggars wanted to impose their beliefs on others. They want to have a section of their home state that they can run in contravention to existing state laws. In this case, they got their wish. However, I hope the owners of those mini-marts appeal the ruling and get it overturned to a more fair and equitable one.

If the Duggars don't want their family exposed to the realities of modern life, then they might as well purchase some island state and move there. Or perhaps build a huge wall around their property, and live cloistered from the world, like nuns. Where I get annoyed is when they want to impose on the outside world, against the existing laws of the land.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the bottom line is this: the Duggar's are worried about their home and land value?

Anonymous said...

In their book,JB says he and Michelle did run a few convenience stores many years ago,but they didn't sell alcohol due to them being in a dry county.They did sell cigarettes,however,but they know full well the impact it has on not selling alcohol in such a business.They said that for all their efforts,they only earned around minimum wage.And that's one reason (if not the primary reason? ) they sold the stores.It just wasn't worth it.

Bell, Southern said...

Jane said "Really, it's rather shameful of the Duggars to decide that business owners are going to have to struggle rather than sell beer or wine LEGALLY on their premises, to adults of lawful age to purchase it."


*******************************************

Perhaps you all who live in different areas of the country where government determines most zoning rules for you are not familiar with the extremely popular custom in the South of people in the communities adhering to more of a "community mores standard" wherin those who live in the community are given the right to voice objections to certain kinds of businesses opening near homes, schools and churches?

Anonymous said...

Okay, I don't normally post, but I have to say. In the south, the blue laws are pretty strange, and a very touchy subject. The county next to the one I lived in had to measures voted on at one time, one to allow alcohol sales and one to ban them. It was a big deal. And the group trying to ban sales was very vocal. Even the Chili's can't sale alcohol in that county.

Also the article cited, never actually says Michelle was at the protest or board meeting. The person interviewed "heard" that she was. She gave her interview over the phone. Anyone consider that she might have been called at home or in the hospital to give a response. Heck, people might have assumed that when the Dugger kids were at the protest, she was too.

kitty said...

This is what Michelle Duggar is quoted as saying:

“Personally, I don't think alcohol needs to be convenient. I think it needs to be placed in a place where adults can get to it and they will have a choice to get it. But our children should not be bombarded with that. It's so close to home,” said Duggar.

Sounds reasonably logical to me. I don't see the huge uproar against her protesting. It isn't like the people in the area have no where else they can get alcohol. I don't see anybody's rights being infringed here. As far as the storeowners go, that's just one of the hazards of doing business.

Jane in California said...

Bell, Southern said...

Perhaps you all who live in different areas of the country where government determines most zoning rules for you are not familiar with the extremely popular custom in the South of people in the communities adhering to more of a "community mores standard" wherin those who live in the community are given the right to voice objections to certain kinds of businesses opening near homes, schools and churches?
* * *

Bell -- that happens in all areas of the country. I can recall a time not too long ago, when a "adult lingerie and accessories" store wanted to open in an area of downtown. People wrote letters to the editor, the zoning commission and the city council, most against allowing a store of that nature in that particular location. The main objection was that people felt this type of store would upset the existing balance already in place. They didn't get to move into that space.

I think it's probably true that in every community, city council meetings are open to the public and the public is allowed to take an alloted time to speak for or against any particular item on that night's agenda.

I don't fault the Duggars for taking an opportunity to voice their concerns. However, based on the information provided - the fact that other stores in nearby areas were given their requested permits but not this one - it seems that some special strings might have been pulled. I just feel bad for that small business owner, his or her income diminished because of the Duggars religious preferences.

rest ye merry gentlemen said...

Midwest and Jane, great points. We stayed at a lodge in a dry county down south many years ago. While the stores at the bottom of the mountain couldn't sell beer, the lodge we were staying in (located in the same *dry county*), would sell beer at a hugely inflated rate.

So is it a dry county or not? Didn't make much sense. Our thought was that local politicians had greased some palms to make sure that anyone within the county had to pay about 6 bucks per beer.

I understand the whole morals thing about alchohol, but why is it available to some and not others? Very interesting points made.

sheriff trudy said...

Just one of the hazards of doing business?

Aren't JB and M involved in small, independent businesses. How pious of them to imagine themselves better than others. Lucky for them that the locals don't protest and nit-pick at council meetings. It's also doubtful that local law enforcement would would ever ticket any of their drivers for unrestrained children riding in vehicles. must be nice to have money....

Anonymous said...

IMO the reason it was Michelle to speak up and not Jim Bob was to make it appear there wasn't a political connection to it;(recall JB was in politics at one time)just a 'worried mother' approach to make it all seem innocent.

HonestAbbi said...

but we all get the political connection, don't we. When will media and politicians give us credit for being smart and informed on issues?

Whats the old saying, you can fool some of the people........

Digger said...

The south is not all anti-booze. When I lived down there I drove past a park that was holding a big corporate family party. At the center of the party was a gigantic beer bottle balloon. I'm no prude but I thought that wasn't appropriate for a party with kids.

I think Michelle and Jim Bob need to be confident in their teaching their kids to just say no. They should be more worried about the excessive candy and junk food eating in their own house. How come the Bible doesn't discourage junk food? Thou shalt not eat Twinkies.

When Jim Bob took the girls on the father/daughter campout wasn't Justin walking around with a big cardboard sign of a wine cooler bottle?

Anonymous said...

All I can say is I used to like the Duggar's,but lately I'm very rapidly losing respect for them,and I have a feeling I'm not the only one.(not to include cousin Amy,as per reading here, she has obviously lobbied for prayers for little Josie).

Anonymous said...

The south is not all anti-booze.

No, certainly not. But I dare say you will find the idea of social drinking (as it is in other parts of the country) as accepted in the South.

Also, I think in the South the idea of communities meeting a moral standard is still a dearly held idea.

Sulmith said...

"When Jim Bob took the girls on the father/daughter campout wasn't Justin walking around with a big cardboard sign of a wine cooler bottle?"

I think it was actually a Jones Soda bottle.

Anonymous said...

As long as selling beer is legal, Jim Bob and Michelle should pay attention to their own family, and quit trying to impose their views on everyone else. If they are confident in their childrearing, they should know that their children are not going to be out "boozing it up" (they aren't ever alone anyway, but that's a separate point!).

I really think that Michelle should be home with her 18 children, including her baby who just turned one, or in the hospital with her preemie. She should not be out politicizing so soon after a major surgery, even if I agreed with her stance on the minimart.

Miss said...

I was just watching The Duggars eating at a Tennessee B.B.Q place and right above the table there is a HUGE sign that reads "BUDWEISER THE KING OF BEERS".....Why did J.B and Michelle not mind that sign?

Enough with the Multiples said...

re: IMO the reason it was Michelle to speak up and not Jim Bob was to make it appear there wasn't a political connection to it;(recall JB was in politics at one time)just a 'worried mother' approach to make it all seem innocent.
-------------------------
That's a very good point. And if that's the case then the Duggars are more political than they let on. Although I think this one may backfire on them, image-wise.

roddma said...

I really cant be so hard on Michele since I feel strongly about alcohol and dont drink. On the other hand,if someone want to drink one or two beers in the evening its not going ot hurt anything. It is about self-control. You can also eat too much junk food and it hurt your health.

Yes Michelle was looking after her family but it is hard to control other people's actions. Her family is the key. There are times to take care of your own family and stay out of politics. It would make more sense if the article said Michelle and others protested the permit instead of one person throwng their beliefs around.

Miss said...

Ravello,

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in complete agreement.

Somebody's Nana said...

I think the Duggars would have been at that meeting even if they weren't famous. Remember, they have long been involved in politics and community at a local and state level.

In the south, as in many small communities, it is common for ordinary people to have the opportunity to express their views on community decisions, of which alcohol licenses are one. If you look at the decisions, it appears that their state rep is the one who had more clout than they. The Duggars simply got more press.

As for what she was doing there instead of being at home or the hospital? She was advocating for what she felt was the best for her children in the long run. We can disagree with her belief, but we really shouldn't be criticizing her for taking a couple of hours to do so. The opportunity for speaking out was limited, and she was available. Her position at the hearing was consistent with her stated beliefs.

luvmybabies said...

"As for what she was doing there instead of being at homeor the hospital? She was advocating for what she felt was the best for her children in the long run. We can disagree with her belief, but we really shouldn't be criticizing her for taking a couple of hours to do so. The opportunity for speaking out was limited, and she was available. Her position at the hearing was consistent with her stated beliefs."

My thoughts exactly.

Midwest Mom said...

"The opportunity for speaking out was limited, and she was available. Her position at the hearing was consistent with her stated beliefs."

Mrs. Duggar is not that consistent.

Example:
Surely the Duggars could have found a different place to eat besides the restaurant with the "Budweiser King of Beers" sign above their heads.

Mrs. Duggar said (in the Kleinfeld dress episode): "we don't judge others" (regarding strapless wedding gowns).
And yet, she judges adults who want to legally buy beer at a gas station.

Not that consistent.....

Anonymous said...

Midwest Mom said,

"Mrs. Duggar is not that consistent.

Example:
Surely the Duggars could have found a different place to eat besides the restaurant with the "Budweiser King of Beers" sign above their heads.

Mrs. Duggar said (in the Kleinfeld dress episode): "we don't judge others" (regarding strapless wedding gowns).
And yet, she judges adults who want to legally buy beer at a gas station.

Not that consistent....."

Who cares if she eats at a place that sells beer? She's isn't judging others on drinking it...it appears she just doesn't want it that accessible to kids close to home, or bombarding the kids in the community unnecessarily. In her phone interview she states that alcohol should be inconvenient to children, and should be in a place where adults only can get to it.

No judgment there.

Anonymous said...

The thing is - the alcohol IS in a place where only adults can get to it. Nobody can buy the alcohol who isn't 21. Another poster mentioned that a store that went to this much trouble and underwent this much publicity in an attempt to get a liquor license will most likely be very vigilant (as are most stores) about checking ID. Does Michelle want the alcohol somewhere where minors can't even SEE it? I just don't understand this idea that it's accessible to them. It's not, because the laws have already taken care of that. What am I missing?

Anonymous said...

Also, I don't understand how they can go places that serve alcohol, but have a hissy fit about a mini mart being able to sell alcohol to legal adults. I don't quite get it. If they are so opposed to alcohol, they couldn't go to restaurants, cities, any of the places that TLC is paying for them to go now.

So, it's a bit silly for them to get all high and mighty about "protecting their children" from alcohol being sold to legal adults, when they have been plenty of places where alcohol was---with their children.

King of Beers said...

Nope I don't buy it!

If your gonna go out of your way to protest something after just giving birth and have 18 other children at home then go all the way Michelle.

I too saw the sign that read "BUDWEISER KING OF BEERS" at the restaurant that they were eating at.
But so long as TLC was fitting the bill why say NO to a freebie?

Make up your mind Michelle.

Somebody's Nana said...

Lydia said:
Lydia said...

As long as she is selling her life and her kids life for public consumption, we can criticize. I personally agree with her stand, but I heartily disagree with how she places her God given responsibilities as mother to her 19 children on the back burner when it suits her.


As I understand it, you think she has a responsibility to her children, but even if she feels that speaking out herself may help do something that she thinks will protect those same kids (and others) she shouldn't do it because it's outside the house? I think she was putting her children first - I dont't think that physically she wanted to be there (I know I wouldn't after a c-section) but she felt it was important.

No, she made her self available at the expense of her children. Either she is a keeper at home, or she isn't.


So, again - if she's the "keeper" of the home, she has no right to do anything outside the home, even if her husband is in full agreement? That's putting her into a box of your design - not God's. (Prov. 31)Sorry, I don't agree with you.

MomtoD said...

Why not just teach your own kids to avoid beer if you want them to avoid it? Let that be the end of it! Quit your crying lady!

I believe that if Jesus didn't want us to drink a single drop of alcohol in our lives, he wouldn't have changed water into wine at a wedding as his first miracle performed. If you want to avoid alcohol for personal reasons, then avoid it! But don't tell others that they are immoral because they disagree with you.

Now, as for safety issue.. that can't possibly be what this is about. I live 20 minutes from the Duggar house. I know that if someone were in search of alcohol, they have a plethora of options that extend past the one mini mart that they are bent out of shape about. I can name at least 4 liquor stores close by that have drive though windows.. talk about convenience!

It just doesnt make sense to me!

Anonymous said...

It makes sense if you remember the old agage that there's no such thing as bad press - this got the Duggar name (and intended apparent cause) out there front and center in the media yet again.

It doesn't make sense if you believe the woman has no sense of appropriate priorities - which in this case should be a toss-up between her newborn and critically premature infant and the child at home who just had her first birthday as well as all the other children at home. Of course, since they only celebrate birthdays in some collective fashion instead of individually, I suppose she can rationalize her way out of that one.

I suspect that no matter the needs of this child, she'll be handed off like so much baggage to one of the older girls to raise. That's been the established pattern for a long time, and I think patterns are much more important than people to this family. I have more respect for Kate Gosselin, who at least raises her voice at times as well as spending some time raising her own children, than I do for Ms. Duggar - or the man who keeps getting her pregnant without having enough sense to know it isn't to her advantage or that of the children involved.

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons that I think (and hope) that this show is on its last legs is that people are beginning to see the fault lines and flaws in this family. Of course, that is the risk one takes when one throws their family's privacy out the window, in favor of the Almighty Dollar.

But the Duggars, because of the fundamentalist beliefs, were given a pass for a lot longer than other reality TV families. I always thought it surprising that people could come down on KG and not Michelle, when both have basic (yet different) flaws as mothers.

No one would have given two hoots what either family did in their lives, had they not chosen to broadcast themselves on national television. So now the Duggar love has also tarnished a little. Not surprising, when one considers some of the choices that family has made.

I'd like to see them off TV and out of the public eye before they too are ruined like at least two other reality families.

Just Passing Through said...

I have more respect for Kate Gosselin, who at least raises her voice at times as well as spending some time raising her own children, than I do for Ms. Duggar..

Really?

While I wish Michelle didn't so readily hand off her babies to the teen aged girls, I have to give her credit for being a mother who finds joy and beauty in her children and is willing to stay at home with them, and teach them.

Kate on the other hand spent most of the previous year on the road with her bodyguard, and readily bragged about "never calling home."

I don't agree with all of Michelle's method's, but in my opinion, a cat is a better mom than Kate Gosselin.

Betty said...

Anyone who thinks Kate Gosselin tends her own children isnt' paying attention to what really happens. Kate has nannies, yes multiple. Many, many reports have been made by observers of how Kate is only with the children when needed for filming or photo ops.

BTW, Michelle Duggar did not go back to Tonitown to protest the convenience store. The ABC meeting was in Little Rock so Michelle was gone from the hospital for an hour or so.

Calm voice said...

Just Passing Through said:

I have more respect for Kate Gosselin, who at least raises her voice at times etc....
************************************
Although I do have issues with some of the things that Michelle does....Her calm voice is to be commended. Since when is raising one's voice admirable? To me Michelle is calm and in control unlike Kate G who I think is a shrew.

Aside from that I do think that the last place that I would want to be is protesting. I much rathere be home with my other 18 children or just resting after such an ordeal.

Amanda said...

rest ye merry gentlemen said...

We stayed at a lodge in a dry county down south many years ago. While the stores at the bottom of the mountain couldn't sell beer, the lodge we were staying in (located in the same *dry county*), would sell beer at a hugely inflated rate.

So is it a dry county or not?
___________________________________

If this has been addressed I apologize..I live in Arkansas. I live in a split county, we have two county seats, different taxes for each side, etc. There is a mountain in the middle of the county (the highest point in Arkansas)

The south side of the county is dry the north side of the county is wet. There is a lodge on top of the mountain and yep it sells alcohol (beer and wine) If someone come in though the south side of the county they would think the same thing. There are several counties in Arkansas that are split and have similar situations.

Anonymous said...

Re: Now, as for safety issue.. that can't possibly be what this is about. I live 20 minutes from the Duggar house. I know that if someone were in search of alcohol, they have a plethora of options that extend past the one mini mart that they are bent out of shape about. I can name at least 4 liquor stores close by that have drive though windows.. talk about convenience!

It just doesnt make sense to me!

==================================


I've a feeling this wasn't about BEER at all.
Not to mention the back-stage political strings that were pulled in order to pull this off.IMO,Michelle was just a puppet in the game.

BigCityLittleMinds said...

They're relocating to Little Rock? But----there are hundreds of MiniMarts and other stores there that sell alcohol!!!
Michelle will be busy with this.

OhEmGee said...

I thank my lucky stars yet AGAIN I have never been to Arkansas.
Boob used to be an elected official there? "Oh Em Gee"

Anonymous said...

"Aside from that I do think that the last place that I would want to be is protesting. I much rathere be home with my other 18 children or just resting after such an ordeal."

I highly doubt Michelle wanted to be at the meeting either. She probably felt like she needed to be. We all do things we don't want to do when we feel like we need to.

Anonymous said...

This wasn't about beer. There are tons of places to buy beer near the Duggars, and they have already been shown on TV going to restaurants and games and such that serve alcohol. I don't see them making a big fuss about beer at the ball games or food establishments!

Personally, I wish they would check their hypocrisy at the door. It's becoming tiresome.

Anonymous said...

I think when you have a critically ill premature child in the NICU and 17 other kids at home, including a child celebrating a first birthday, it's time to get ones priorities in order. If she didn't "want" to do the protest, she could just say no. A novel concept I know, but well worth the effort.

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said:Re: Now, as for safety issue.. that can't possibly be what this is about. I live 20 minutes from the Duggar house. I know that if someone were in search of alcohol, they have a plethora of options that extend past the one mini mart that they are bent out of shape about. I can name at least 4 liquor stores close by that have drive though windows.. talk about convenience!

It just doesnt make sense to me!


And if there are so many places to get liquor, why do we need to add it to a convenience store? I'm of the opinion that it should be available in a liquor store, where children don't go.

How is it hypocrisy for the Duggars to go to restaurants that serve alcohol when their stated intent was to not have it available to children? In a restaurant, the adult is there and orders the meal, ensuring that alcohol is not served at their table. In a convenience store, it's often at child eye-level. The Duggars have never said they want to prevent adults from having access, only children. And for those of you who think that teens do not have access in a convenience store, you may have been living a sheltered life. In my home state, liquor stores and convenience stores were one and the same, and I can tell you that as teens, my friends had no trouble getting alcohol. It's a bit harder when you're not allowed in the store, as is the case with liquor stores.

Somebody's Nana said...

I think when you have a critically ill premature child in the NICU and 17 other kids at home, including a child celebrating a first birthday, it's time to get ones priorities in order. If she didn't "want" to do the protest, she could just say no. A novel concept I know, but well worth the effort.

As I imagine Michelle Duggar; from "her" viewpoint: When you have a critically ill child in the NICU, you only have so many hours that you can sit in the foyer waiting to see your child. Depending on your child's status, you might be able to sit by their incubator, but if there are several other critical children who have medical issues, you are often asked to leave if you're not in the middle of caring for your child, at least while they deal with the crisis at hand. And since your infant is extremely fragile, you really can't even touch her that often because it will create a stressful situation for her in addition to the stress of the machines needed to keep her alive. There are also the regular shift changes that can take an hour or more to relay information to the next shift, and during which parents have to leave, and you have precious little time to actually spend with your infant. You are, however, extremely grateful for the dedicated and caring staff who daily care for your infant and others and are willing to risk their own emotions to work in such a stressful environment. They truly are a different breed of nurses and doctors.

Considering the fact that your other children are 200 miles away, and you realize you can't simply drive home to see them. At some point you simply need to do something "normal" and worthwhile, and something that allows you to feel like yourself. So you go to the hearing which you had hoped to go to before you delivered unexpectedly. At least at this hearing you are advocating for all of your children, something you feel very strongly about. You really don't care if people understand you, because you've always done things a little differently than most people and you are somewhat accustomed to being the odd ball. You speak your mind for a brief while and answer the inevitable questions by phone. You return to your baby and spend some more time praying and watching.

You avoid the news and internet, because it's certain that many people will say you should be home with your other children, but you know the minute you go home they will criticize you for leaving your baby. It doesn't matter to you, but all the same you don't want to deal with it because you simply don't have the energy to waste.

You have good friends who offer a place for the family to stay so you can all be together and you are grateful for their loving kindness. Still, there is criticism. Somehow people think you don't care enough for your children, even though your whole life is devoted to caring for them and making sure that their needs are being met in one way or another. But at least if they are with you, you can fit in some of their schooling. And if you don't get it all done by the end of the school year, you are grateful that homeschooling allows you to continue into the summer if necessary. Either way, you will raise your children as you and your husband see fit. They are wonderful children, and despite the fact that the entire world is now viewing your family and making judgments, you know that you are simply doing what God is calling you to do. It's not easy, but then, nothing worthwhile ever is.

Somebody's Nana said...

BigCityLittleMinds said...
They're relocating to Little Rock? But----there are hundreds of MiniMarts and other stores there that sell alcohol!!!
Michelle will be busy with this.


The time to speak up is BEFORE a decision has been made, not after. So the time to speak up at the hearing was exactly when she did it, which is the REASON why they have hearings in the first place. The Duggars have not indicated that they intend to protest any decisions that are already made, and their past history bears this out. They don't judge others who choose to drink, but when it comes to hearings, their viewpoint is as valid as anyone else's viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

The entire world (well, not really, but the curious TLC viewing public) is making judgments about the family because they chose to give up their privacy in favor of big money from TLC. As with any other celebrity, once you are in the public eye, you lose your privacy. So, the Duggars have lost theirs, and if they really cared about not being judged or about maintaining their privacy, they should never have agreed to put their family on national TV. It's really that simple.

I don't feel sorry for them now, as people are judging some of their very poor decisions. They could still return to a more private family life, but they have to give up the TLC gravy train. The question is whether they will do this, in order to maintain their family's integrity, or whether they have been so bitten by the American greed bug that they aren't able.

Just Passing Through said...

Somebody's nana Said "When you have a critically ill child in the NICU, you only have so many hours that you can sit in the foyer waiting to see your child."


**********************************************************
Actually I believe that the hospital there has suites for in NICU.

But were she not allowed to see her micro-premie as that baby fights for it's life, perhaps she could have spent some time with her 12 month old baby or her 2 year old toddler?

And if perhaps she were not so inclined to spend her time with those babies, perhaps any one of her other children would have been available?

Somebody's Nana said...

Just Passing Through said: But were she not allowed to see her micro-premie as that baby fights for it's life, perhaps she could have spent some time with her 12 month old baby or her 2 year old toddler?

I addressed that point as well - "Considering the fact that your other children are 200 miles away, and you realize you can't simply drive home to see them."

But let's say MD did drive home to spend time with her other children. Would there not be people claiming that she simply didn't care for her newborn baby either because she wasn't getting enough publicity, or because she can't deal with special needs children, or because it's too much work (all things I've read in other places, some on this blog)? I've even heard criticism over their decision to relocate the entire family to Little Rock. I think that no matter what Michelle does, she'll still be criticized - which was the point of my fictional description...

Anonymous said...

WHich is why it is time to get their family out of the public eye. Then they can live their lives without scrutiny. However, they will have to give up the money that comes from being celebrities...

SuzanneDeAZ said...

I read somewhere that the host that is housing them is the Jenny's Osborne family known for their Christmas lights. I understand that they have a mansion and purchased two homes, one on each side of the mansion that are 5000 ft.each. I read the history of their Christmas lights on Wikipedia and it seems that they purchased the properties on both side of their mansion so they can add more lights.

The Duggars are blessed to be able to stay in such a nice home large enough to accomodate them.

Jane in California said...

Anonymous said:
How is it hypocrisy for the Duggars to go to restaurants that serve alcohol when their stated intent was to not have it available to children? In a restaurant, the adult is there and orders the meal, ensuring that alcohol is not served at their table. In a convenience store, it's often at child eye-level.
* * * * *

Not to pick on you in particular, but the general argument that somehow, alcohol is more available to children at a convenience store than elsewhere, so that's why convenience stores should not be allowed to stock/sell it. The same would hold true for many things we don't want our kids to have access to: cigarettes, chewing tobacco, some of those high energy pills and potions, diet pills, some nutritional supplements that aren't really nutritional, high fat candies, cookies, chips and crackers, etc., etc.

Just because a child can see something, doesn't translate into = they can get it easily. I went to the grocery store with my mom as a kid and I saw lots of things I wanted. I only got what my mom decided she would buy. That meant I never got the clear plastic high heel shoes!!!

What's really going on with the Duggars is called "not in my back yard" (NIMBY). That means that they want a certain zone around their home where things they can control what goes on. In this case, they got their wish. I'm sure that has a lot to do with the fact they are well known TV "celebs." Ultimately, it's of little matter, except to the small business owner who was hoping to eke a better profit from his or her business. I'm sure if they have to sell out, JB and M will pray for them.

Anonymous said...

Re: WHich is why it is time to get their family out of the public eye. Then they can live their lives without scrutiny. However, they will have to give up the money that comes from being celebrities...

========================================

I agree,I just really don't see them doing that though.If anything,they need tlc more than ever right now.
Anytime one of the Duggar's sneezes,tlc makes an episode about it.Why should this time be any different? IMO they'll just show the story from the time of the birth,putting emphasis on the 'caring' part of it,in order to gain another exploit from this family.

roddma said...

the real issue here is timing and priorites. No one is saying Michelle should stay with the baby 24 hours aday.The last thing on my mind would be some liquor license. Most of us are only making observations rather than judgements. Saying things like beer leads to strip joints and what not is just as ludicrous and judgemental. Being on TV doesnt give someone a right to enforce their views on someone. this is what upset folks the most If you want to make a safer world why not address cocaine and meth? I agree Laura we'll leave them alone when they leave everyone else alone

Anonymous said...

The amount of money the Duggars make on the show is pennies compared to what Jim Bob earns from real estate. Unlike the G's, this is not about the money. The Duggars have said that they're using television as a tool to encourage other families. I don't see a problem with this show. So what. They get the occasional free stuff as a perk of doing the show. If anything the kids have been given a much broader spectrum as a result of being on TV. As long as the Duggars see the show as a means of spreading the word of Jesus Christ, they'll continue doing the show. I don't see them ever going public with a scandal if that happened. It's just not them and they don't need the money.

luvmybabies said...

Anonymous said "I don't feel sorry for them now, as people are judging some of their very poor decisions. They could still return to a more private family life, but they have to give up the TLC gravy train. The question is whether they will do this, in order to maintain their family's integrity, or whether they have been so bitten by the American greed bug that they aren't able."

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the Duggars' main motivation for doing the show is money, or fame. The money is nice, I'm sure (I would take money too for allowing my life to be filmed and broadcast), but the money isn't the reason they do it. And I sincerely hope that if the show becomes detrimental to their family in any way, that they will be able to make the decision to discontinue it. But I'm not going to judge when the right time is for them to do that.

BTW, that was beautiful, Somebody's Nana. You have a talent for expressing your viewpoint with strength and grace. I feel that scenario describes how it probably really went down with Michelle at that time. Thank you for that.

Anonymous said...

If the Duggars had been doing well with their commercial real estate, prior to TLC, they wouldn't have been living in a three bedroom ranch with 16 kids. That's just the reality.

Similarly, Josh's car lot of dusty old cars is not doing well either, I don't think.

Both Josh and Jim Bob need TLC. There is no way there aren't financial considerations and that TLC is supporting a new lifestyle for this family, complete with grand pianos, fancy furniture and lots of trips (sound familiar? G family, anyone?).

And there is no way I would sell my family to be filmed on national tv, not for millions of dollars. It just isn't worth the safety risk, or the way that cameras interfere with normal child development. So, I think it is not a very "Godly" way of trying to share their family, anyway.

luvmybabies said...

Jane in California said "Not to pick on you in particular, but the general argument that somehow, alcohol is more available to children at a convenience store than elsewhere, so that's why convenience stores should not be allowed to stock/sell it. The same would hold true for many things we don't want our kids to have access to: cigarettes, chewing tobacco, some of those high energy pills and potions, diet pills, some nutritional supplements that aren't really nutritional, high fat candies, cookies, chips and crackers, etc., etc. "

Cigarettes, candy and chips don't cause tragic drunk driving accidents. These are not even remotely related to alcohol in their ability to destroy through tragic accidents. Those of us who have experienced the pain and destruction that drunk driving causes are concerned with the places and convenience of where and how conveniently alcohol is sold. We don't want to prohibit the sale of it to adults, but why does it have to be everywhere as convenient as it can possibly be? And as far as availability to minors goes, don't we all remember high school? The 21-year old who never really left high school and goes to buy the booze for the "keggers" for the seniors? Availability, ease of purchase and convenience all make these scenarios more likely. Alcohol served at restaurants doesn't contribute to the drunken driving problem (although it can) as much as stores selling it in bulk.

I am sorry, I think Michelle Duggar got it right with this one. Her newborn preemie as well as her children at home weren't hurt in the slightest by her attending this meeting. It isn't about her foisting her "morals" on others. Adults can still easily get alcohol. It's a safety issue, in my mind.

Anonymous said...

Luvmybabies, Are you saying that adults don't drive drunk? the reason the accessibility has been mentioned is that Michelle specifically stated that her goal was to have the alcohol somewhere that was accessible to adults but not to minors. You mentioned the 21-yr-old. who buys alcohol for high schoolers. That 21-yr-old is an adult and should still have the same access that other adults have. Whether or not the alcohol is visible isn't going to determine whether or not someone who is legally old enough to buy alcohol is going to purchase it. I guess I just don't understand what you are trying to say. Of course drunk driving is devastating, but how is having the alcohol less accessible to 21-yr-olds going to stop it? They are still legally allowed to buy it. Having the alcohol accessible to children doesn't cause more drunk driving, either. The whole argument Michelle was making is that she wanted adults to still have access, but not kids. I don't see how kids being able to see alcohol is going to cause an accident or how the alcohol being hidden is going to stop a legal adult from buying it.

luvmybabies said...

Anonymous said...
If the Duggars had been doing well with their commercial real estate, prior to TLC, they wouldn't have been living in a three bedroom ranch with 16 kids. That's just the reality.



The last two or three years they lived in that house they were building the one they currently live in. Before they began construction on it, they accrued a chunk of change to the tune of at least $80,000, to pay cash for the steel package. In addition, the 3-bedroom house was paid for in cash. They also have paid cash for all their vehicles.

The condition of one's finances isn't always apparent by their clothes or the house they live in. One guy can be in debt up to his eyeballs but drive nice cars and have an upscale house. Another guy can live in a modest home and wear used clothing, but own his house outright and be debt-free. Which one is better off? I'd rather be the second guy.

In my opinion, the Duggar family was doing fine on their own before the show.

Anonymous said...

Adults cause the majority of drunk driving accidents anyway. Unless the goal is to move us back to prohibition times and limit alcohol altogether, there are going to be jerks who drink and drive. Whether or not this particular mini mart sells alcohol is not going to protect the precious Duggar children. Any drunk can just go to the next mini mart down the block instead.

I think all this attention is misguided at best, and likely not to make a hill of beans difference. People who want beer will still get it, even if they have to drive an extra mile.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

In my opinion, the Duggar family was doing fine on their own before the show.

They were doing better than average for a family with 16 children.

But things certainly changed with the TLC money. I'm not faulting them for what they did, but let's be reasonable and admit that the money they are paid from TLC certain placed them in a new tax bracket.

Somebody's Nana said...

Jane in California said:"What's really going on with the Duggars is called "not in my back yard" (NIMBY). That means that they want a certain zone around their home where things they can control what goes on. In this case, they got their wish. I'm sure that has a lot to do with the fact they are well known TV "celebs." Ultimately, it's of little matter, except to the small business owner who was hoping to eke a better profit from his or her business. I'm sure if they have to sell out, JB and M will pray for them."

I think you're missing the point here. The Duggars are not advocating that all liquor stores that are currently in the area lose their license to sell. They are merely exercising their rights as citizens to speak up at a hearing about this particular license. This is why the state has hearings. As for the other items that you listed, the state does not provide a forum for citizens to speak.

The owners of the mini-mart had the right to make sure that they had their supporters present to speak to their side of the issue. They apparently didn't do this, at least not very well.

There is no "zone" around the Duggars. Other people have clearly explained that there are many liquor stores in the area.

Jane in California said...

luvmybabies said:
Cigarettes, candy and chips don't cause tragic drunk driving accidents. These are not even remotely related to alcohol in their ability to destroy through tragic accidents. Those of us who have experienced the pain and destruction that drunk driving causes are concerned with the places and convenience of where and how conveniently alcohol is sold. We don't want to prohibit the sale of it to adults, but why does it have to be everywhere as convenient as it can possibly be?
* * * *

I do hear your argument in favor of limiting where alcohol can be sold, and you make some very valid points. I can see your point of view. I am sorry for you and for any who have been affected by drunk drivers. I definitely agree that driving under the influence is a terrible thing and something we should all hope could be lessened.

Sadly, I don't think stopping a mini mart here or there from selling beer or wine will make a bit of difference, but I can see why some people would feel better nonetheless.

The real truth is that we can't stop others from making bad decisions, can we? A prime example of how laws affecting the sale and licensing of liquor can be avoided would be when Prohibition was in effect. It didn't stop people from drinking - it simply made it an underground activity. Bootlegging was common. Nowadays, it's people manufacturing drugs in their homes instead of booze.

In the same vein, the Duggars are going to live their lives as they believe right. I don't blame them for taking steps as their conscience dictates.

You are also right in that the mini mart owners could have lined up speakers in favor of them getting the license. Sounds like they were caught by surprise by the opposition. I'm sure it will all work out, one way or another, in the end.

My main feeling upon hearing of Michelle's attendance was concern for her well being. I just think this is a distraction and she should use her free time for spending with her other children, and for resting her tired body. I really wish JB had gone and spoken instead of her.

luvmybabies said...

Anonymous said...
Luvmybabies, Are you saying that adults don't drive drunk?


No. I am aware that they do. My point is that the more places there are that sell alcohol, and the more convenient it is to purchase, the greater chance there is of drunk driving by both teens and adults. I know that keeping the stuff out of one mini-mart isn't going to solve the problem. But if it results in preventing even one death (and it may not) then it is worth it.

I think what Michelle means by not wanting children bombarded by alcohol is this: when a child sees beer, attractively packaged, being bought and sold as a matter of course, right next to the candy and soda, he comes to think of it as normal and harmless, when in actuality it is an addictive and intoxicating substance. What if cocaine were legal, and it was attractively packaged and sold (to adults only) at stores where our children go to get an Icee? I believe, for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing in principle. Children then become teens and adults that are comfortable with alcohol consumption. I know that some adults drink responsibly, but others do not. IMO, it should be sold in liquor stores only, but that's another topic.

Having said all that, I want to state for the record that I do not judge adults who choose to drink alcohol responsibly, and that I am not trying to "push my morals" on others. I have family members whose lives have been ruined by alcohol addiction, and I can't hide the fact that I have a deep dislike for the stuff. This is also why I understand Michelle Duggars' actions in attending the hearing for the liquor license.

However I recognize that many people drink alcohol responsibly. And I know there are arguments about how children in Europe are raised with alcohol from an early age and that drunk driving there isn't a problem, etc. Nevertheless, this is my opinion and thoughts on alcohol, FWIW.

luvmybabies said...

I'minPR said...

"But things certainly changed with the TLC money. I'm not faulting them for what they did, but let's be reasonable and admit that the money they are paid from TLC certain placed them in a new tax bracket."

Sure. Absolutely it did. I know they have many extras that they didn't have before. I'm addressing the posters that claim or imply that the Duggars needed this show to avoid being poverty-stricken.

And I would add, the Duggars were likely doing better financially (in terms of debt and savings, at the very least) than the average family, period. Not just your average family with 16 kids.

Anonymous said...

Re: People who want beer will still get it, even if they have to drive an extra mile.
=====================================

Exactly.I used to live in a dry county,and the beer drinkers would just go to the next county over to buy it,and drink it on the way home.How do I know this? By all the empty beer bottles and cans that lined the road.

Anonymous said...

Re: The owners of the mini-mart had the right to make sure that they had their supporters present to speak to their side of the issue. They apparently didn't do this, at least not very well.

======================================

They probably saw no reason to.They were told there was no reason it would not be approved.

Anonymous said...

Re: There is no "zone" around the Duggars. Other people have clearly explained that there are many liquor stores in the area.

====================================

Then what exactly is the problem with the new mini-mart selling alcohol?
Was this nothing more than a publicity stunt? I really have to wonder about that.

roddma said...

If you raise deecnt kids you shouldnt have to worry about them buying alcohol. Controling drunk driving and addiction is more about education than only religious reasons. Only citing relgious reasons wont help the problem. Enforcing beliefs isnt going to stop the problem either. As someone said it goes beyond standing up for beliefs. -- It seems Kate Gosselin cant do anything right either. Whats teh diffence They both put their families on TV. Anyone can wear the name Christian.

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous-

Any good lawyer would have told the owners of the mini-mart to not assume a "yes" vote on the license. A hearing is provided specifically for citizens to speak up and influence the decision. While others may have had no problem before them, the decision is not guaranteed. Their mistake.

As to why people would protest one mini-mart when others around them have a liquor license: If I believe strongly in something as the Duggars do, it is my duty to speak up. I may have no influence, but at least I've made an effort. The Duggars do not believe in having liquor available "next to the candy" (my interpretation) in a convenience store. They have two options: 1. Keep quiet - in which case the state will think no one objects to any license, or 2. Speak up, letting their view be known.

An action should be based on beliefs and convictions, not on outcome. In other words, you don't only act when you know you'll be successful (i.e. elimiating alcohol) but you act on your conscience.

I've seen the word "hypocritical" thrown around a lot lately. In my opinion, if Michelle Duggar had not spoken up, THAT would have been hypocritical.

Ohio Buckeye said...

JMO: I do not agree with much of the Duggar lifestyle, especially as it pertains to limiting their offspring's learning of the larger world around them so they can make their own choices and decisions and, thereby, defining their own personal moral compasses. However, I support their right to live this way.

I find it offensive, however, that such right wing believers are rarely content with living their own lives according to their chosen beliefs. Far too often, they seek to put their chosen restrictions on others, i.e., prohibition of liquor sales.

Seems to me a more enlightened way to handle a difference between personal beliefs and the freedoms given to the larger world, is to encourage children to learn about, ponder, and define their own sense of right vs. wrong.

Rather than limit the rights of others by demanding their locale remain 'dry', better (IMO) to teach children how to be strong enough to forego 'temptations'.

Wiser to teach children the hows and whys of staying true to their own conscience than attempting to rid the world of any and every 'temptation'. Removing what they consider to be 'temptation' steps all over the rights of those who do not find these things morally wrong and smacks of self righteousness, as if conservative belief systems are inherently more moral than more liberal mindsets. I find this offensive, unwise, and unenlightened. To each their own, and this includes those who choose to imbibe, dance, dress in modern day styles, and practice responsible birth control.

There's room in the world for freedom for all - to those who choose to refrain, more power to them. But for those whose moral compasses point in a different direction, equal respect and freedom for them as well.

Kat said...

If Michelle thought it was her duty to speak out against this license permit, that's her choice. What I find odd, disturbing, uncomfortable (take your pick) is that this woman was six days out of an emergency C-section, with a child in NICU. C-sections ARE considered major surgery, and the instructions afterwards are to rest and recover. There are at least five other people in that family who are/should be registered voters who could have spoken on the family's behalf and expressed the same opposition. I believe that the ONLY reason Michelle attended and spoke was that JB thought she would receive more sympathy, given her condition, and it appears he was right. But for a man who professes to love his wife, I would think that his first concern would be her health and safety. THOSE concerns were not served by her presence at this meeting. Even if she wanted to be there, she should have been "encouraged" to stay home and rest. That's the part that bothers me intensely.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

Speaking up about a liquor license is not necessarily putting your belief on others. It is not wanting something in their neighborhood. It is legal to protest or they would not have such an opporunity. I just do not think it is such a big deal that should be given this much attention to that she went out and did something she had a "right" to do and it was legal. It is to me no biggie that she did it at a time others may not have chosen to attend such a meeting. Why all of the anger over her choice?

Cyn said...

Not to pick on you in particular, but the general argument that somehow, alcohol is more available to children at a convenience store than elsewhere, so that's why convenience stores should not be allowed to stock/sell it. The same would hold true for many things we don't want our kids to have access to: cigarettes, chewing tobacco, some of those high energy pills and potions, diet pills, some nutritional supplements that aren't really nutritional, high fat candies, cookies, chips and crackers, etc., etc.

***********************************
Cigarettes are stored either behind a locked see through shelving unit or above the cashiers head. The High energy pills are stored (in most places) behind the clerk or in a locked cabinet by the register. Supplements (sold at mini marts) depending on your state are also by the register where the cashier can keep a better eye on them. Beer on the other hand is back in the back right beside the Coke’s and Pepsi’s easily picked up and slid inside a parka, or a hoody. Much less a 18-20 yr old ‘looks old enough’ and buys it because the cashier doesn’t take the time to check the id OR worse yet KNOWS the kid is under age and does it anyway. Liquor stores on the other hand it’s all they SELL so they make a point not to lose the license because it’s ALL they sell, and would go out of business the day they lost it.

I for one agree with Michelle with the fact that is should only be ACCESSIBLE to adults. If it’s only sold in liquor stores where you have to at least LOOK 21 (and they watch you like a hawk while you are in them) to get in the store and some actually card you coming in the store. (I was a young looking 21-25)

My only issue is she did it SIX DAYS after giving birth. Any of the other adults in the family could have made the SAME objections to the new license and gotten the same results.

As to why the other mini marts have those licenses the Duggars could have been out of town or swamped and unable to get to the other meetings to stop those, and were simply close enough to the meeting place this time so get to it TO protest it. It always shocks me when I go to other states and find them selling not only beer but wine and other liquors in the grocery stores and I see kids (8-16ish) walk right into that area or aisle pick up a bottle and walk right out again with not ONE adult saying something.

Anonymous said...

I have never in my life seen an 8-16 year old buy liquor and have the cashiers turn the other way. Not once. Ever. In fact, kids who look "around 21" are always carded! THis is why so many kids have "fake IDs" (which I vehemently disagree with).

I think it is nonsense to think that Michelle's opposition to this minimart is going to make any difference whatsoever in the lives of her or anyone else's children. Maybe she should MHOB, and worry about her own kids. Let other people worry about theirs.

Somebody's Nana said...

Ohio Buckeye said:I find it offensive, however, that such right wing believers are rarely content with living their own lives according to their chosen beliefs. Far too often, they seek to put their chosen restrictions on others, i.e., prohibition of liquor sales.

Everyone has strong beliefs about something or other. It is not offensive in and of itself to speak out for or against something. It is only offensive if you attack people and call them names for believing differently.

Michelle Duggar did nothing offensive. The very fact that we live in a free country with the right of free speech means that she has every right to speak her values as do you.

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said I think it is nonsense to think that Michelle's opposition to this minimart is going to make any difference whatsoever in the lives of her or anyone else's children. Maybe she should MHOB, and worry about her own kids. Let other people worry about theirs.

Her neighborhood; her business. Someone else's neighborhood, you could argue the point.

Nancy said...

I live in a state where they sell beer and wine in the main stores. I have NEVER seen a teenager walk in, grab a bottle and walk out. Not once. In fact, I get carded every time and I am 45 years old. They definitely try to be as cautious as they can. What states were you in where teens were allowed to just take bottles of alcohol? That is very unnerving.
Personally, I think that Michelle's attendance at the meeting was really strange given the situation in her family but they are odd people- their priorities are quite different than mine. And for the record, our kids and family are our first priority but we act upon it quite differently. I try not to foist my values on others so I do realize that they have the right to do things however they wish. I'm not sure they want others to have those same rights.

Cyn said...

Anonymous said...

I have never in my life seen an 8-16 year old buy liquor and have the cashiers turn the other way. Not once. Ever. In fact, kids who look "around 21" are always carded! THis is why so many kids have "fake IDs" (which I vehemently disagree with).

I think it is nonsense to think that Michelle's opposition to this minimart is going to make any difference whatsoever in the lives of her or anyone else's children. Maybe she should MHOB, and worry about her own kids. Let other people worry about theirs.
12/30/2009 1:12 PM
***********************************

Where in my entire post did I say the 8-16 yr olds BOUGHT it. I said they went in the area of the grocery store and picked it up and walked back out of there with it...

I saw MOST take it to a parent standing with a cart. Some I didn't see where they went with it (ie there was no parent in the aisles around that the kids put the liquor in a cart)

What I said at the mini marts was they STEAL it simply because it's in the back and the cashier can't SEE them back there.

My niece when she was between 16- and 18 would simply walk in with 2-3 other people 1 buying something (thus distracting the cashier) the other asking the cashier questions and the third in the back sticking beer bottles in their coats or pocketbooks calming walk to the front and PAY for a soda pop in the cooler next to the beer and walk out of the store they would hit 3-4 stores then go home and drink them.

THAT is what Michelle and people like her that try and block mini marts from selling alcohol are trying to prevent... The same trick could NOT be done in a liquor store simply because they would not be allowed in the store.

Nancy said...

Cyn - thanks for the clarification. You were speaking of these young people STEALING alcohol. I don't see why a teen in a liquor store with his Mom couldn't do the same thing (shove a bottle down their pants or whatever). Perhaps the kids stealing need a little lesson in values - not just about the evils of under-aged drinking. I don't imagine the Duggar children would ever steal anything - at least based on what we see of them.

Cyn said...

Anonymous Nancy said...

I live in a state where they sell beer and wine in the main stores. I have NEVER seen a teenager walk in, grab a bottle and walk out. Not once. In fact, I get carded every time and I am 45 years old. They definitely try to be as cautious as they can. What states were you in where teens were allowed to just take bottles of alcohol? That is very unnerving.
Personally, I think that Michelle's attendance at the meeting was really strange given the situation in her family but they are odd people- their priorities are quite different than mine. And for the record, our kids and family are our first priority but we act upon it quite differently. I try not to foist my values on others so I do realize that they have the right to do things however they wish. I'm not sure they want others to have those same rights.

12/30/2009 1:31 PM

In Michigan I frequently watched those kids in Meyers (sp) and another grocery store walk into the area set aside for liquor and back out again. In one it was a squared off area off in a corner with one way in and one way out. The other store it was 2 aisles at the back of the store between the dairy and the paper products. As I said I saw most of them drop them off in carts of their parents but several of the older ones simply walked to another area of the store.

BTW had I saw one of them pocketing it or had CAUGHT my niece doing that I would have told a manager or the cashier in the mini mart. As it was I told her parents what she was doing (she didn't speak to me for years either lol)and they grounded her for 6 months.

Now I saw the cashiers CARDING at the registers yes.... but my point is the ones you can stop by NOT selling it in the main stores or mini marts is the ones that STEAL it, I get carded to this DAY which is fine if not annoying since I look NOTHING like a teen or a kid but since it's their job I don't say anything I just show my id and go on.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

I find it offensive, however, that such right wing believers are rarely content with living their own lives according to their chosen beliefs. Far too often, they seek to put their chosen restrictions on others, i.e., prohibition of liquor sales.

Whether you are a right wing conservative or a left leaning liberal, all Americans have the same right to have their voice heard.

I think she should have stayed at the hospital with Josie, but I completely support her right to speak to the issue.

Most communities and cities in the USA allow the citizens to decide what will be in their communities. That's why you usually have strip clubs, bars and porn shops near each other; people don't want things like that in their neighborhoods. As property owners and citizens, they sure have the right to speak to the direction of the neighborhood.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

Somebodys Nana said Everyone has strong beliefs about something or other. It is not offensive in and of itself to speak out for or against something. It is only offensive if you attack people and call them names for believing differently.

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
Wonderfully and truthfully said. I bow in your direction.

Anonymous said...

I have not seen 8-16 year olds walk out, STEALING beer either. Sorry, not a once. Stealing a lip gloss or a candy bar? Maybe, but I have seen those kids caught too, and it ends up in the police report, published in the paper. I have NEVER seen a report of underaged kids stealing liquor.

Do underage kids drink liquor? Yes, of course. Will Michelle's imposition of her views change that? No, just as it will not change the basic human nature for young people to want to have sex. Ensuring that teenagers are never alone (so as not to have any"disturbing" thoughts) or unchaperoned, does not change basic human nature. And nothing Michelle and Jim Bob say or do can change human nature.

Cyn said...

Nancy said...

Cyn - thanks for the clarification. You were speaking of these young people STEALING alcohol. I don't see why a teen in a liquor store with his Mom couldn't do the same thing (shove a bottle down their pants or whatever). Perhaps the kids stealing need a little lesson in values - not just about the evils of under-aged drinking. I don't imagine the Duggar children would ever steal anything - at least based on what we see of them.
12/30/2009 2:21 PM
***********************************
What state allows any one under the age of 21 in a liquor store?

And yes I agree with the rest of your statement. The Duggars kids are not going to steal, but Michelle said in the interview she wanted to make it less accessible to the kids (or something close to it).

Sharla said...

California for one. We don't have state controlled liquor stores. They are open to the public and are privately owned. They usually sell many of the same items as a mini-mart just with more beer, wine, and liquor. Then there are the big places like Bev Mo with a lot of variety and more drinking accessories and no mini-mart items.

Cyn said...

Anonymous said...

I have not seen 8-16 year olds walk out, STEALING beer either. Sorry, not a once. Stealing a lip gloss or a candy bar? Maybe, but I have seen those kids caught too, and it ends up in the police report, published in the paper. I have NEVER seen a report of underaged kids stealing liquor.
*******************************
http://www.alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3573&Itemid=10

http://www.hrblunders.com/store-fires-guard-for-stopping-teen-from-stealing-booze/

http://www.toacorn.com/news/2008-02-21/Police/Minors_who_want_alcohol_just_steal_it.html

This last one is just insane = the MOTHER used a TEN yr old child to steal the liquor.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/178/story/822569.html

Just because you have 'never' seen a report doesn't mean it's not happening. 5 min on google brought these up, it also brought up blogs of teens telling other teens how to steal the beer from the stores and from parents and youtube videos as well (youtube video that I watched were of them stealing from home to be fair, and why I didn't post them as they did not relate to mini marts or grocery stores)

It does happen, and these are only the ones that got caught.

Cyn said...

Sharla said...

California for one. We don't have state controlled liquor stores. They are open to the public and are privately owned. They usually sell many of the same items as a mini-mart just with more beer, wine, and liquor. Then there are the big places like Bev Mo with a lot of variety and more drinking accessories and no mini-mart items.

********************************
I did not know that....

The more research I did the funkier it got, some states it's illegal to be in the store under 21 others it's not.... Some states card every one in the party other states card only the person buying it... In other states it might be legal to bring the child in but the owners can then refuse to sell to you simply because they don't want to.

When I was in a liquor store in KY I brought my then 10 yr old in with me as to not leave the child alone in the car and was politely told to leave as that store did not allow children inside.

In TN with a 18yr old cousin in tow I was again asked to leave because she was not of age.

In MI and GA it's in the grocery stores so no issues there.

Anonymous said...

But again, for people who claim not to want government to interfere in their lifestyle (this is very much a Gothard ideal), why on earth do the Duggars feel the need to induce the government (even state or local) to interfere with other people's lifestyles?

It's contradictory, no?

Sharla said...

I've lived in states or counties where no alcohol could be sold within the county, ones where beer only, beer and wine, and one with no state store even. You had to drive 30 miles to get more than 3.2 beer. In one state no one below 21 could go in the store. In another state children could go in but had had to stay behind the rope. I appreciated that as it was illegal to leave the child in the car in that state.

Another state we lived in, "spirits" were allowed to be sold in the grocery stores, but only in a separate area as there were strict hours for their sale.


Here in Cali, beer, wine, and liquor are indeed sold in liqour stores that often are more like delis or marts, grocery stores, drug stores, specialty stores, some 7-11 type stores, and probably many places I've never been. I'm not sure 7-11 type places carry more than beer and wine and not all of them carry anything alcoholic.

Anonymous said...

I'll have to agree with a few of the other posters here on this one.

My "problem" with Michelle appearing at this hearing was not so much (well - not at ALL, really) that she did so, but that she did it SO SOON after the birth of her daughter and especially when that daughter's life is in the balance.

I was/am concerned for Michelle's health and believe that the family's priorities were way out of order on this one.

Somebody's Nana said...

But again, for people who claim not to want government to interfere in their lifestyle (this is very much a Gothard ideal), why on earth do the Duggars feel the need to induce the government (even state or local) to interfere with other people's lifestyles?

First of all, the Duggars do not follow the Gothards. What they do is share ONE common belief, that of accepting all children as given by God. The Gothards hold many differing beliefs, some even about those very children which the Duggars do NOT.

So please, if you have your own opinion of the Duggars, be sure that you are basing them on accurate information, not hearsay.
The Duggars have and will continue to be active in public life, including government (politics).

Anonymous said...

You know, I have never known of parents who have LESS faith in their children than the Duggars. They seem to feel that if the children see or hear ANYTHING that could possibly be a different viewpoint, that their children will immediately succumb to lust, or drunkenness, or whatever. These kids will not be equipped as adults to make choices, since all choice seems to be out of the question. The mere presence of a store that carries alcohol will not turn the area into a red-light district. Even if it did, the Duggars should feel that their children had been taught well enough to make the correct choice, and just walk on by. Good parents install good values, and not justt lock children away from all possible perceived "evils." I would imagine that the "Nike" situation makes the boys MORE aware of the female form, by emphasizing how forbidden and enticing the sight of, say, a knee can be.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You know, I have never known of parents who have LESS faith in their children than the Duggars.
___________________

Well said! Well said! Well said!

I, too, have always thought that the Duggars focus on this just enhances THEIR emphasis on it!

SuzanneDeAZ said...

The Duggars never have given up their freedom to voice their beliefs. Just because they used a legal forum to voice their opinion does not mean they want the government to have more of a say so in their lives. They have the legal right to be heard or they would not have hearings.

I just do not know why it is such a big deal that Michelle went to a hearing and spoke up. It really is bugging a lot of you. hmm

Nancy said...

The reality is, if we do not want children EVER exposed to alcohol, or to be able to EVER have access to it (whether by stealing or other method) we will have to go back to prohibition. Which actually did not stop the production or distribution of alcohol. I don't blame the Duggars for doing what they believe is right but they will have to dedicate their lives to ridding the world of alcohol if they truly trust their children so little.

Ohio Buckeye said...

Anonymous said, "You know, I have never known of parents who have LESS faith in their children than the Duggars. They seem to feel that if the children see or hear ANYTHING that could possibly be a different viewpoint, that their children will immediately succumb to lust, or drunkenness, or whatever. These kids will not be equipped as adults to make choices, since all choice seems to be out of the question. The mere presence of a store that carries alcohol will not turn the area into a red-light district. Even if it did, the Duggars should feel that their children had been taught well enough to make the correct choice, and just walk on by. Good parents install good values, and not justt lock children away from all possible perceived "evils." I would imagine that the "Nike" situation makes the boys MORE aware of the female form, by emphasizing how forbidden and enticing the sight of, say, a knee can be."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I completely agree with your comments. I had a similar thought when I read a post that said something to the effect that kids will get the idea that drinking is 'normal' if they see it right there along with all kinds of other 'normal' home supplies: Not giving the kids much credit on their ethics nor their intelligence. That's a shame.

Ditto about the whole courtship concept: if a couple in their early 20's is too immature to warrant trust to remaining true to whatever their chosen sexual boundaries are WITHOUT a chaperone, perhaps they are not yet mature enough to be considering such an adult undertaking as marriage.

Midwest Mom: I agree with your post, too.

I, too, wonder about the crying at this meeting. Post partum depression?? It's real, it's serious, and I hope anyone suffering with it seeks help.

But then again, it also did not ring true to me to see M cry when talking about their remorse over 'causing' miscarriage by taking birth control pills, a pseudo-medical take on a spontaneous abortion (just the medical term for a miscarriage) if ever there was one.

It's important here to state that, while I fully understand and completely empathize with anyone who loses a baby under any circumstances, something about tears over 'causing' a miscarriage by taking birth control pills just does not ring true IMO.

I want to believe the Duggars are sincere (even though I do not agree with their concept of morality), but because they are part of the TLC menu, I have to be somewhat skeptical about their authenticity. No offense intended to anyone (except TLC).

Anonymous said...

>First of all, the Duggars do not follow the Gothards. What they do is share ONE common belief, that of accepting all children as given by God. The Gothards hold many differing beliefs, some even about those very children which the Duggars do NOT.

-------------------------------------

they follow Gothard's curriculum,do they not? they also follow his standard of dress,amongst other things.(courting,etc).

Anonymous said...

>I just do not know why it is such a big deal that Michelle went to a hearing and spoke up. It really is bugging a lot of you. hmm
------------------------------------

..that it bugs people when anyone says anything about it is an even bigger hmmmmm....

Anonymous said...

Quite frankly I think JB used his political affiliations in order to prevent the liqueur license from being approved.Why else would he ever let Michelle be up and about at a time when she should not be (after MAJOR surgery)unless he had something to do with it and didn't want that known.IMO Michelle was just the sitting duck in order to circumvent JB's involvement in the issue.

Jane in California said...

SuzanneDiaz said:
I just do not know why it is such a big deal that Michelle went to a hearing and spoke up. It really is bugging a lot of you. hmm
* * * * *

I think I stated why it bothered me, but I don't mind repeating it. There are basically two reasons I found it troubling:

1. She just went through a stressful and difficult birth of a preemie. She was hospitalized and her health was on the line only six days prior to attending this public meeting. I strongly feel that JB did not do his proper duty as a loving and concerned husband and gently insist she place her own health first. He could have gone to the meeting, or Josh and Anna, instead, to speak just as effectively. As a mother, her first priority should be to her family. That means she should take good care of her health, so she can continue to be the best mother and wife possible. Further, she has 18 other children, some of them quite young, who needed their mom's time and attention. I feel her priorities were misplaced in this episode.

2. My second beef had less to do with Michelle than with the idea of protesting something legal that would impact another's livelihood. I guess as a former small business owner, I can really feel for the mini mart owner who no doubt was hoping to improve his income by selling beer and wine. I still feel it's a shame that the Duggars purposely interfered with that ability. It's one thing to say "we don't allow alcoholic beverages in our home" to "we don't want to allow this business owner to sell beer and wine because children might see it" and I guess get overcome with sinful thoughts and run amok, while the store owner doesn't pay a bit of attention to the fact he's being ripped off and probably will lose the liquor license he worked so hard to obtain. *shrug*

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

I just do not know why it is such a big deal that Michelle went to a hearing and spoke up. It really is bugging a lot of you. hmm

I believe she has every legal right to speak up.

However, since she has pledged herself to be a keeper at home, she should keep her pledge.

Also, only 6 day prior to her business trip to the ABC board, she was fighting for her life and underwent an emergency c-section. If the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and Michelle Duggar believes that it is, it strikes me that she was misusing her temple.

Was it lawful for her to go and speak? Of course. But it certainly was not expedient or edifying.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

First of all, the Duggars do not follow the Gothards. What they do is share ONE common belief, that of accepting all children as given by God. The Gothards hold many differing beliefs, some even about those very children which the Duggars do NOT.

No offense, but the above comment is incorrect on several levels.

Firstly, there is not something called "the Gothards." Bill Gothard, an unmarried man, is the creator and and sole arbiter of Gothardism. He is not a church, operates outside of a church and answers to no one. He has a board of directors, but when anyone disagrees with him, they are removed from the board.
Gothard propagates more than a few strange ideas and teaches them to his followers, of which the Duggars certainly are.

Many of Gothard's doctrinal errors come from the fact that he uses Old Testament laws that were given to the Jewish people and claims that Christians today should follow some of those laws.

And yes, the Duggars do follow and believe in Gothardism. They advertise for him on their websites, they advertise for him on their TV show, they allow him to use their name for advertising. They are completely immersed in his ATI program, which people are not allowed to use unless they promise to abide by what the program teaches COMPLETELY.

Bill Gothard is no saint. He has admitted to "moral failures" with female members of his staff. He teaches that no one will ever be blessed unless they are under an "umbrella of authority," a phrase certainly not found in Scripture, yet Bill Gothard answers to no man. He just cashes the the checks and does whatever he wants to do.

http://www.batteredsheep.com/gothard.html

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

You know, I have never known of parents who have LESS faith in their children than the Duggars.

Like most Christians, they believe the Bible when it says to have no confidence in the flesh.

Anonymous said...

Those kids are never allowed to be alone, so I don't know what Ma and Pa Duggar are so afraid of.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

The fact she went when it was a hard time just shows how important the matter was to her. I give her credit to see through something even though it was a rough time. The baby was in good hands. Like some say she could not do much at that time as the baby can not even be touched. It certainly did not hurt her health and she was miles away from the other children and could not be there for them.

Again it was a legal act and she had reason to speak up even if none of you agree. It was within her rights to have attended the meeting as that is why they hold the hearings so someone like her could say what they have to say.

I commend her for going to something she felt important at a very hard time in her life and spoke up. It paid off.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

How do you know their intent to not want the liquor license is because they do not trust their own children. Again this should be put in fact or fiction thread being someone is stating it as a fact. Maybe their just do not want it for other reasons. Other teens or under age children may steal it as it is said that it is stolen a lot. And as a result one of those kids could drink and drive and run into another car and kill someone.

My daughter works at a store and she says they steal liquor and ciggies all of the time. She is not to run after them or take any action. The store just finds ways to make up for the loss such as charge higher prices for the other items which we pay for.

Anonymous said...

@ SuzanneDeAz.
This is a forum, where we speak what is on our minds, and it is my OBSERVATION about the trust level that the parents give their children. It is a FACT that the daughters have to police their brothers with the Nike nonsense. It is a fact that courting couples are chaperoned. The list goes on. I did not say a thing about KNOWING what is going on in their brains. I am just commenting on what they present to the public, both in their book, and in their television show. The implication of objecting to the mini mart is that the mere presence will lead their children into temptation. My point is that a parent gives their children values and principles, and it takes away from each child's self-esteem that the parents do not let them experience the victory of choosing to do what is right. It is no virtue to do the right thing if there is no free choice in the matter. Yes, the "flesh is weak," but proper parenting includes instruction, supervision, and ultimately, trust.

If the only way that you can trust your children to do right is to sequester them, and to ban any legal business that they do not agree with, you've done a poor job parenting.

And I am SURE that the mini mart is not the only place to buy alcohol in Arkansas, nor the only place one can shoplift. They are, of course, entitled to voice their opinion, as am I.

Jane in California said...

Anonymous said:
It is no virtue to do the right thing if there is no free choice in the matter.

* * * *

I couldn't agree more. I think if you have done your very best as parents, you should then have trust in your children that they will make good decisions, most of the time. No one is perfect, we all make some bad choices in life -- but that's also another way we learn, and often learn best.

Having your life "safety'd" for you, to eliminate as many possible chances to make the wrong choices, is not truly preparing you for a life well lived.

It's the difference between your mom and dad buying you a bike, versus you working jobs like mowing lawns, babysitting, walking the neighbor's dog, to earn the money you need to buy that bike. One was given, the other well earned. Which child do you think will respect the value of that bike more?

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

It is a FACT that the daughters have to police their brothers with the Nike nonsense. It is a fact that courting couples are chaperoned.

It seems as though the sisters consider it a favor and a blessing to help their brothers avoid stumbling. And most Christian parents I know do not allow their teens out on dates with just one boy, one girl. Chaperoning, whether by peers or other family members is quite in vogue.

The Christian is encouraged in the Bible to have no confidence in the flesh. I think the Duggars are wise to adhere to that. After all, sexual temptations have toppled the very mighty. Who is to say that an experienced teen wouldn't make a mistake they'd regret forever? Especially considering that the leader of the free world couldn't keep it zipped.

Kat said...

Im_in_PR said "Like most Christians, they believe the Bible when it says to have no confidence in the flesh."

By this standard, then, husbands and wives should never be apart. What might happen if one should have to go somewhere alone? Or even just be in an office all day and be tempted by all those other unaccompanied people?

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

By this standard, then, husbands and wives should never be apart.

For a husband and wife who have satisfied their God given desires with each other, it's probably a different story as far as the ability to refuse temptation goes. (Than say a teen with raging hormones and no outlet.)
But even being married is no guarantee as our esteemed former leader President Clinton, can attest to.I mean, people have affairs all the time. It seems more the norm than not. If husbands and wives were together more, perhaps that wouldn't be so. But temptation comes to all men and women.

But even Christian husbands and wives are told not to defraud each other (withhold sex) so that Satan can not tempt them. I'd say the Duggars took that admonition to heart, wouldn't you?

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

Or even just be in an office all day and be tempted by all those other unaccompanied people?
,br>A whole lot of marriages fail that way, sad to say.

By the way, thanks to whoever is moderating tonight in New Years Eve!!! We "stay at homes" appreciate you!

Anonymous said...

I see it as being two completely separate issues..one is Michelle's health,and whether or not she should have been up and about;and two is the actual liqueur license itself.

Of course she had a right to speak out,but she did so at a rather untimely time.I agree that JB should have been looking out for her health,and YES,it could have harmed her to be there! 6 days postpartum from a FOURTH c-section (yes,4th,see their book)from health issues that forced the early delivery is no time to be up and about and protesting ANYTHING.The uterus at that time has not yet returned to it's previous state (even without major surgery-not),the site where the placenta was attached has not healed (danger of infection still),and there are internal and external sutures as well,that could rupture,get infected,or hemorrhage,profusely at that.
PLEASE please..anyone who think it was A-OK for Michelle to do what she did,please study this (medically speaking)further first! No Dr worth his/her grain of salt would have thought or agreed to her doing what she did,just 6 days postpartum from major surgery!

SuzanneDeAZ said...

I still think it was ok for her to have gone to the hearing. It turned out that it brought forth fruit of her labor.

Anonymous said...

I think it is pathetic that no man and woman (or boy and girl) can develop a friendship. How sad. Not all friendships lead to infidelity and it really is a sad commentary on this type of lifestyle that they have so little faith in people.

Somebody's Nana said...

PLEASE please..anyone who think it was A-OK for Michelle to do what she did,please study this (medically speaking)further first! No Dr worth his/her grain of salt would have thought or agreed to her doing what she did,just 6 days postpartum from major surgery!

As I understand it, medical recommendations are to not drive, take it easy (no long walks) and no lifting. I don't see how being in a hearing with chairs to use for most of the time and/or speaking are violating that medical advice. She wasn't there for long and I'm sure she rested afterward. Don't you think it would have been more strenous physically to drive the 200 miles home and/or have toddlers climbing on her lap?

Also, everyone heals at different rates, and the issues with pre-eclampsia are gone immediately after delivery - which is exactly why they do the emergency c-section. My friend and I once had identical surgeries - it was two weeks before she felt better; I felt fine in three days.

Anonymous said...

The Duggars who could have purchased wine from that mini mart are legal adults who can make their own decisions. Why is Michelle interfering with the rights of legal adults.

The Duggars who are minors could not purchase the liquor anyhow. Why are they harmed by seeing it? Assuming the little Duggars went into that mini mart and saw the liquor and asked about it (three big ifs), Michelle could just use it as a teaching opportunity.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

Michelle is not interfering with legal adults she is using her rights to protest at a hearing. Why does she need a "teaching" moment at a mini mart for her kids?

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said:The Duggars who could have purchased wine from that mini mart are legal adults who can make their own decisions. Why is Michelle interfering with the rights of legal adults.

The Duggars who are minors could not purchase the liquor anyhow. Why are they harmed by seeing it? Assuming the little Duggars went into that mini mart and saw the liquor and asked about it (three big ifs), Michelle could just use it as a teaching opportunity.


Michelle Duggar did not in any way infringe on any adult's freedom to purchase liquor. She simply used the opportunity provided by the state to speak out on whether to issue a liquor license to this store or not. Anyone could have spoken in support of it and large groups in support would've influenced the board, believe me.

Her belief, and it is borne out by statistics, is that things that become familiar are more likely to influence behavior. She has no control over the other existing liquor stores, so she didn't even try to address that. She simply wanted to stop yet one more liquor store in her area. Will it prevent her children from seeing that alcohol exists? No. Will it prevent other children from seeing it? No. But it at least is ONE place they can go where they don't see it.

And certainly, no one who wants alcohol is prevented from getting it. So no ones' rights have been affected. Inconvenienced? Maybe. But there was no liquor store there before, so there is no change in the status for those who choose to drink. Lack of convenience does not equal lack of rights.

Somebody's Nana said...

You know, I have never known of parents who have LESS faith in their children than the Duggars.

Other posters have pointed out (and rightly so) the unsafe conditions that exist when children are allowed to do things without taking safety into account. In these situatins, it is evident that they are unaware of the potential problems. Yet on the other hand, when the Duggars do recognize that children are not ready to make certain adult decisions on their own, you criticize them.

I happen to agree with them on limiting the children's exposure to certain things. The older children are exposed to other behavior and beliefs, even if some people insist that because they have a sibling with them it isn't real exposure. However, I don't remember going anywhere when I was a teen without a good friend with me - one who shared my values, btw. To me, these situations are one and the same.

Pearlo said...

agree that JB should have been looking out for her health,and YES,it could have harmed her to be there!

Agreed. It also gave the impression to the world that Michelle is the boss in the family.

Anonymous said...

It also gave the impression to the world that Michelle is the boss in the family.

Especially in light of Proverbs 31 which states that the husband is known to the rulers and elders at the gate, not the wife. But it seems that Michelle is taking JimBob's position in the family.

Somebody's Nana said...

Pearlo said...
agree that JB should have been looking out for her health,and YES,it could have harmed her to be there!

Agreed. It also gave the impression to the world that Michelle is the boss in the family.

This cracks me up. Some say that JB should have made the decision, but others think that JB wanted her to go because of the effect that her testimony would have.

Now you say that because Michelle went it makes her look like she is the boss of the family.

Has anyone considered that they work as equals and allow each other to express things as they see fit? Having a husband as the head of the household does not mean she is a robot. It simply means that if there is a difference of opinion, she agrees to abide by his decision and she is willing to let him be the leader. It does not mean that she doesn't sometimes have an opinion of her own.

This is an isolated instance and should not be used to judge their relationship. She wanted to speak, she was available, and she spoke. Sometimes it just "is" what it is.

Cyn said...

Yet on the other hand, when the Duggars do recognize that children are not ready to make certain adult decisions on their own, you criticize them.

@ Nana ever get the feeling some people are just "danged if they do and dangedd if they don't"?

And for those that don't/ won't read through an entire blog before posting I don't think MICHELLE should have been the one protesting. Simply for health reasons.

MY view on the health reasons were: there is a NASTY NASTY flu going around not to mention all the normal winter colds and what not that Michelle could have caught in her weakened condition and/or taken back to the baby in NICU.

Jane in California said...

Someone's Nana said:
So no ones' rights have been affected. Inconvenienced? Maybe.
* * * *

Well, except for the owner of the store, a small business owner who is no doubt providing for his family with the income generated by this store. His (or her) rights to legally sell beer or wine (as other mini marts in the area are allowed to do) were affected. I would say it caused him more than a mere inconvenience, since the end result affects his bottom line.

But I know to those opposed to the sale of alcohol, that is not a consideration.

Jacobi said...

I finally set up a Google account to avoid further confusion of who said what.

I am the "Anonymous" who said "You know, I have never known parents who had less trust in their children than the Duggars," and I was also the one who said that I was giving my OBSERVATIONS about what the Duggars presented, not claiming that that I knew what was in their mind.

I find I must clarify once again. There is a world of difference between having trust in your grown children, to whom you have given the seemingly lion's share of child rearing and housekeeping, and letting children run amok with no limitations and guidance.

Of COURSE children have to be supervised. I did not in any way imply that it should be ok to send the kiddies out without supervision. That is part of the teaching process. The other part is, once the child is grown, to let them put those principles into practice. A good parent still keeps an eye on the situation, and keeps up a dialog with their children.

I also am not advocating taking the kids to bars or whatever. I am suggesting that they should be able to go into a minimart and buy some milk without believing they would immediately forget all their values and teaching, and steal alcohol and cigarettes.

At what point does this magical maturity/ability to resist temptation happen? Marriage? What if they don't marry? That is why you let kids earn your trust, bit by bid, during childhood. This prepares them to be responsible adults. No one can shield kids forever, not even the Duggars. They need to learn personal responsibility.

Anonymous said...

re: I don't see how being in a hearing with chairs to use for most of the time and/or speaking are violating that medical advice. She wasn't there for long and I'm sure she rested afterward. Don't you think it would have been more strenous physically to drive the 200 miles home and/or have toddlers climbing on her lap?

---------------------------------------

we don't know that there were chairs,perhaps she had to get up/stand up to speak? and for exactly how long? we don't know that it wasn't 'for long' as you say.
and I doubt she just snapped back as you did...she's had back to back pregnancies for over 2 decades,and yet another (fourth) c-section.
Since Michelle was said to be crying,YES,this was obviously very stressful for her,and I'll repeat what I said: no Dr worth his/her grain of salt would have ever recommended she be there!

Anonymous said...

re: And certainly, no one who wants alcohol is prevented from getting it. So no ones' rights have been affected. Inconvenienced? Maybe. But there was no liquor store there before, so there is no change in the status for those who choose to drink. Lack of convenience does not equal lack of rights.
-------------------------------------

I totally disagree.The OWNER'S rights to sell a legal item were infringed upon.It's hard to believe in this day and age it could happen.JB and Michelle did not sell liqueur when they had their stores, due to being in a dry county.
But they don't have the right to infringe upon this owner's legal right to do so,imo,just b/c it is near their house.They are not any better than anyone else,and it smacks of elitism.
I doubt anyone would have even listened to Michelle if she hadn't been on tv and JB hadn't been in politics.Perhaps they feared bad press and future repercussions if they approved the license,knowing the Duggar's didn't want it approved.

Madeline said...

The issues with pre-eclampsia are gone immediately after delivery.
*************************************

Not always the case. I had severe pre-ecampsia and delivery was in odrer. It did bring it down considerably but it was still rather high for 2 weeks afterwards and I had to be monitored.

Personally I am of the old school thinking and think that Michelle should have been resting and staying warm and still.

Somebody's Nana said...

To answer several points about Michelle:

Crying: this could've been because she was hormonal/emotional/tired, but it in no way means that she shouldn't have gone to talk. It was HER choice.

Standing: Perhaps she did have to stand a bit, and perhaps she was tired at the end, but again - HER choice.

Legal right to sell: Yes, the owners of the mini-mart had a "legal right to sell" BUT only if the state board gave them a liquor license. The state board REQUIRES a hearing so that citizens can speak for/against. If you don't like that requirement and you live in Arkansas, then petition to get the law changed. Don't say that someone's rights were infringed upon because someone else took advantage of their own rights to speak.

Doctors: it is my observation, over many years, that Doctors have standard recommendations and adjusted recommendations. They can adjust their recommendations based on the speed with which one heals, the needs of the person, or the desires of that same person to do something important. So while your own doctor may have said one thing, her doctor may very well have said something like "if you must go, no driving and no sitting or standing for long periods of time" The point is, we will never know, because conversation between M and her doctor is privileged.

Healing: Doctors have pointed out that not everyone is the same. Some people can have many, many children and do fine. Others are worn out before they even finish their first pregnancy.

I am so tired of people saying that her body MUST be worn out because she's had so many kids. Not necessarily so. There are some people who can simply pop out babies with no effort and recover quickly.

I was walking around the hospital an hour or so after delivering an almost 9 lb baby and wanting to go home. By the time we went home two days later, I stopped at the grocery store. I felt fine. When I got tired, I took a nap. My OB said I was "made to have lots of babies" - I declined to prove him right.

C-Sections as an indicator of health problems with M: The incidences of c-section in Michelle's cases have to do with the position of the baby (except for the last one) and not the condition of her uterus.

Pre-eclampsia: Yes, some people can have lingering symptoms, but many do not. You can't assume that one person's experience is Michelle's experience. Apparently, she felt well enough to go. I'm sure she rested afterward, and she's apparently fine. Why argue about it other than it doesn't fit your idea of what she "should do"?

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with everything Michelle has done, but I also do not agree with people who judge her harshly because of some of her decisions. In particular, I do not attach negative motives or "bad parent" tags simply because she does something different. And I do not necessarily attach "bad" motives to those who disagree with me, either. :)

Anonymous said...

Crying: this could've been because she was hormonal/emotional/tired, but it in no way means that she shouldn't have gone to talk. It was HER choice.

But back in the day when she was making choices for her life, didn't she decide that she was the keeper at home and JimBob was the leader of the family? That's what they say in their book anyway.

Is she now changing choices and going for the leadership position she once left to JimBob?

What other "permanent" lifestyle choices is she now changing?

SuzanneDeAZ said...

Who is saying going to the hearing is a leadership position? Is someone reading something into this and trying to make it sound like a fact?

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said: But back in the day when she was making choices for her life, didn't she decide that she was the keeper at home and JimBob was the leader of the family? That's what they say in their book anyway.

Is she now changing choices and going for the leadership position she once left to JimBob?

I don't see her making any decisions about what they are going to do in the future, etc. Where is this "leadership" you think you see? How is advocating for her children (a mother's natural position) now seen as a leadership role? How do you not think that she and JB discussed this and he agreed it was the right thing to do? Do you really think that she would've gone if he wasn't in full agreement? Submission to a husband's spiritual leadership does not create a second-class citizen who can do nothing outside the home. And a caring spiritual husband recognizes the strengths and abilities of his wife, and encourages her where they do not conflict with other duties. In my mind, they must've been in complete agreement over this issue, or she would not have gone.

im.in.PR@gmail.com said...

And a caring spiritual husband recognizes the strengths and abilities of his wife, and encourages her where they do not conflict with other duties.

So JimBob forced her up from her sick bed in the hospital to go and do what he was unwilling to do?

Which is worse? That she is now taking the man's job in the family re: Prov 31? Or that he made her go do it even though she had just had major surgery 6 days before and had a newborn baby clinging to life in the NICU?

Anonymous said...

Re:

agree that JB should have been looking out for her health,and YES,it could have harmed her to be there!

Agreed. It also gave the impression to the world that Michelle is the boss in the family.

--------------------------------------

And we know she is not the boss of the family,which makes it even all the more strange that she would show up to begin with,even if she hadn't just had major surgery 6 days earlier.

Anonymous said...

Re: The point is, we will never know, because conversation between M and her doctor is privileged.

======================================

I am sure her Dr would not have recommended she go.
And crying? Yes,that does mean she was stressed,so no,this was apparently something that was not good for her,and JB should have had the common sense to have know that.

Somebody's Nana said...

im.in.PR said: "And a caring spiritual husband recognizes the strengths and abilities of his wife, and encourages her where they do not conflict with other duties."

So JimBob forced her up from her sick bed in the hospital to go and do what he was unwilling to do?

Which is worse? That she is now taking the man's job in the family re: Prov 31? Or that he made her go do it even though she had just had major surgery 6 days before and had a newborn baby clinging to life in the NICU?


I think you misunderstood me! (or I'm misunderstanding you) I was saying that Jim Bob WASN'T forcing her to do anything - that he was supporting her by letting her make the decision to be proactive and public in this decision. I also don't think that by standing up in public she is taking the job of a man.

Prov. 31 does not indicate a woman who takes a man's job, but a woman who uses her gifts in other areas in conjunction with her duties as a wife and mother AND with the full support of her husband.

If I'm misunderstanding your point, please let me know.

SuzanneDeAZ said...

".in.PR@gmail.com has left a new comment on the post "If You Have to Hash Out the Duggars VS the Mini-Ma...":

And a caring spiritual husband recognizes the strengths and abilities of his wife, and encourages her where they do not conflict with other duties.

So JimBob forced her up from her sick bed in the hospital to go and do what he was unwilling to do?

Which is worse? That she is now taking the man's job in the family re: Prov 31? Or that he made her go do it even though she had just had major surgery 6 days before and had a newborn baby clinging to life in the NICU?"

How does one interprete the word "encourage" to "force"? It always amazes me how people read something like this and twist it and tries to make it a fact. Then no doubt someone will take it and run with it as if it was a fact.

The facts are Mrs. Duggar went and spoke at a hearing. Anything else is assumptions and opinions.

Somebody's Nana said...

Anonymous said: I am sure her Dr would not have recommended she go.
And crying? Yes,that does mean she was stressed,so no,this was apparently something that was not good for her,and JB should have had the common sense to have know that.


Stressed? Some of us are stressed about speaking in public without hormones! The fact remains that 1. it was important to her and 2. she had no control over the timing of the hearing. 3. (unrelated) if JB had told her not to go, and word leaked out, more people would be criticizing them for allowing him to control her

Ollie said...

If Jim Bob were truly fulfilling his duties as the leader in their home he would never have allowed this because:

1. In all families I know that chose to be structured this way, including my own, the husband is the one who speaks in public on behalf of the couple or the family if he is at all available. The couple usually comes to an agreement on the issue together first, but just like in any other organization it is the place of the head person to take it public. So why was Michelle speaking for the family in the first place? She should have enough to do being a keeper of the home, she shouldn't have to do Jim Bob's job for him. Seeing her speak when her husband was apparently around to do it just looked funny to me.

2.A loving husband would have taken the lead in guiding his wife on the best course of action, especially during such a difficult time. We can argue over wether or not going to the meeting was the best decision from a health standpoint, but from a PR standpoint it was a horrible decision. Jim Bob, being a politician and all, should have thought about how it would look to have his wife speaking at a meeting given their current situation and the media image they want to portray of a dedicated mother. Best solution, he could have gone and read a statement from his poor sick wife who is deeply concerned about the issue but isn't willing to leave one of the children she is trying to protect during such a difficult time. Gets the sympathy and makes Michelle look much better to the public. The only reason I can think of why he would allow her to go at all was if she was absolutely in hysterics about not going and Jim Bob thought letting her go was the only way to keep her calm and healthy.

3. He would have (lovingly) reminded Michelle that it is her duty, not to mention her privilege, to dedicate herself to the wellbeing of her children and issues inside their family, just as it is his duty to protect his family from things he perceives as harmful in the outside world.

In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, Jim Bob either exercised extremely poor judgement in this case or he is not really the head of their household in anything but the most superficial sense.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 209   Newer› Newest»