What I want to know is how many sick fuckers would purposely expose their children to pesticides just to get the cash. Junkies in a rough spell would probably do it, and some of them manage to have kids for substantial periods of time before Social Services takes them away. Okay, so there are probably not that many people that would sink so low even if it is a distinct possibility.
I'd chalk this one up to Boxer's press secretary trying to keep her in the news. Maybe she'll even pick up a few more voters when she goes up for re-election because
she's for the children. And babies, too. She protects babies.
But seriously, this is probably just to keep her in the news and appease her constituents (the ones who voted for her anyway). That first article seemed pretty inoffensive to me, all in all. What ticks me off is that people who agree with her act surprised when worse situations arise and nobody is listening to them anymore. I don't see it as a productive to call any political stunt "evil" or use other similar tactics to discredit questionable (or otherwise) policies just for the sake of retaliating. It really takes the steam out of the rarer occasions where making so much noise would actually be commensurate with the offensive policy.