DANGEROUSLY fat kids could be taken from their parents and put into care, council chiefs declared yesterday.
They warned that the worst cases of obesity will be increasingly seen as evidence of "parental neglect."
{sarcasm on} I'm sure the English government will do a bang-up job raising children. {sarcasm off, snark on} Maybe it could start by offering them dental care. {snark off}
8 comments:
What IS it about the Brits' teeth, anyway? BTW, The Scholastic Scribe is back online. Please drop in tomorrow and Share the Caption Love during another HighLARious Silly Summer Sunday Sweepstakes!
Unlike here, I know England has a crack team ready, willing and able to the task. I can see them now -- black clad, floating down upon their umbrellas, magic carpet bags ready at their sides. I am sorry to say that the US has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to magical nanny troops and technology.
On my blog, more nanny state activism in the form of limited grading. It's from the Dallas ISD-one of the most politically charged district in the nation. And on intent on doing things for PC reasons rather than academic ones.
Actually, you should check your facts before being snarky. British children are provided with free dental and health care. How many American children are uninsured?
Perhaps you should read the link I offered about dental care, wherein the British are yanking their own teeth because they can't get in to see a dentist.
As they say at NewsAlert, socialism means standing in line.
Certainly this is a ridiculous example of people in government who seek to over-reach. However, generalizations that parents will always do a better job raising children aren't valid either. Anyone who thinks that all parents are doing exemplar, or even adequate jobs, hasn't been in public education long enough. Often it is representatives of the government - teachers, counselors, deans - who uncover the neglect and abuse that shocks society. Often it is the school personnel who the student is most comfortable speaking with. Government often over-reaches, but that's only because so often it has to.
I agreed with you up to your last sentence. It doesn't overreach only because it often has to, but because it can.
And government's record at social engineering isn't as exemplary, on the whole, as that of parents, on the whole. Yes, some parents inflict shocking abuse and neglect, and it's good that agencies exist to help children. However, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" is as old as I am, with little to show for the billions that have been spent. Heck, even Cabrini Green was torn down.
Government's record is abysmal. To try to compare it to very few atrocious parents isn't valid.
There is far more to this debate than simply whether or not the state should go after parents of obese children. If people allow that, where does it stop? For example, will the state suddenly decide that it will remove children from their parents if those parents are not teaching the child the approved beliefs in whatever subject happens to be politically correct? I can make as good an argument that a parent teaching a child to hate blacks or gays or Republicans or Democrats or a member of a different religion is as harmful as allowing that child to overeat. As I see it, these types of ideas are not about helping the children, but are about people in government wanting more control. Why anyone is willing to buy into such arguments in light of the record of government failures is beyond me.
Post a Comment