Should the state take custody of children who are morbidly obese? This is a tough call. I have intense feelings here. I am a life long obese man. I have never given up, but have never defeated it either. I have an eight year old who is obese but not to the degree that this child is.
For the state to take the child, they need more than just the weight. The example in Cleveland heights shows that the county was working with the parents for twenty months to try to get the weight down. I think there is real danger here. Taking a child away who is not being abused in any other way is a very slippery slope. Yes weight is an important thing. I support the people that are trying to get us healthier. This does not however make the state the ultimate authority on this. Are there any obese people working for the agency? I think there probably are. Are they people working for the state that have obese children? I think there probably are. Will family or individual this child is place with get results where his own parents did not? This of course is unanswerable.
The act of taking away a child by the state is an extreme act. We have parents who are drug addicted, alcohol addicted that have their children. I believe there has to be overwhelming evidence to justify it. I have not been able to find enough information to make that determination, but I do believe we have to watch where we step here. Will we allow the state to take action beyond children? Will we allow the state to say you can't work if you are obese? Will we allow the state to dictate what you and your family may purchase to eat? These are dangerous precedents. I simply don't trust the state whether it be Federal, State or local governments.
We allow ourselves to believe that these people must be experts so they must know what they are talking about. The obesity crisis we are in the middle of coincides with a period of time when the state in the form of the federal government started telling us what is good for us to eat. The state tells us to fill up with healthy whole grains. This flies in the face of what has always been believed about how to lose weight. Much research has been produced to show that maybe carbohydrates have detrimental effect on our weight and insulin creation. It seems to me the science is continually evolving, but the state has no tolerance for that. The food pyramid says it knows what we should eat. Do they really?
The results of fifty years of people getting fatter and fatter may tell a different story.
I don't have the answers but I feel intense empathy for the boy being taken away from his parents and still having to face taunting, lack of self worth and more. I am just not convinced that the type of people that run the BMV, the Post Office and the IRS are the right people to say what is the best way to improve an unfortunate predicament.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Transparency has Left the Building
Remember way back during the Bush administration when the media and the left (but aren't they really the same?) had such a problem with a group of energy execs that helped create an energy bill? Think about it. They brought together some people who spend their time working with energy advising the administration about energy.
These people were helping craft legislation that was to be passed or not passed by the Congress and then signed by the President. None of these people could make policy. They simply gave suggestions to put into the legislation.
Now years later we have a jobs panel enpaneled by the current President. These members are a motley group but many of them are fund raisers and bundlers for Obama. Many more are net job killers. They are corporate CEO's that have a history of large layoffs.
Now Obama decides that he isn't going to wait for Congress to pass his jobs bill. He says it is the Republicans holding up his jobs bil, but actually the Democrats in the Senate don't like it either. President Obama has directed his jobs panel (who are unelected remember) to find ways that he can implement job solutions without Congress. I think they call that dictatorship. Do CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN have a problem with this? Not that I have seen.
Is this the change you voted for? Eliminating Congress from the policy debate? Does any of this sound like liberty?
These people were helping craft legislation that was to be passed or not passed by the Congress and then signed by the President. None of these people could make policy. They simply gave suggestions to put into the legislation.
Now years later we have a jobs panel enpaneled by the current President. These members are a motley group but many of them are fund raisers and bundlers for Obama. Many more are net job killers. They are corporate CEO's that have a history of large layoffs.
Now Obama decides that he isn't going to wait for Congress to pass his jobs bill. He says it is the Republicans holding up his jobs bil, but actually the Democrats in the Senate don't like it either. President Obama has directed his jobs panel (who are unelected remember) to find ways that he can implement job solutions without Congress. I think they call that dictatorship. Do CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN have a problem with this? Not that I have seen.
Is this the change you voted for? Eliminating Congress from the policy debate? Does any of this sound like liberty?
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Disagreement equals hate
My first common sense rant is the phrase haters. You see it on bumper stickers, face book et al. They will say something to the effect 'All you haters can ...'. If you take the time to find out what the haters are guilty of, it is more times than not simple disagreement. If you don't like rap music you are a hater. Disagree with affirmative action when it includes quotas? HATER!! Think marriage should stay man and woman? HATER!! Don't like the movies of some actor or another? HATER!!
The practice of classifying people as hater simply tells us there is no room for a shade of gray. For instance I mentioned gay marriage above. It is possible to have compassion for gay people, desire to see common sense reforms such as allowing survivorship rights etc. next of kin rights without wanting to extend everything about marriage. The side accusing of being a hater simply does not allow any such distinction. It is black and white. Agree with me or you are a hater.
Why is this employed? Saying I disagree with you doesn't make you a bad person, but saying you are a hater means you have no right to be involved in any responsible discussion in our society. Why would we let you speak? You are a hater. The list of the subjects that can make you a hater could go on and on. Most often in my experience they involve some sacred subject of the church of political correctness. Common Sense would dictate we actually talk to one another. But that doesn't fit into a text message or a tweet or a face book comment now does it?
The practice of classifying people as hater simply tells us there is no room for a shade of gray. For instance I mentioned gay marriage above. It is possible to have compassion for gay people, desire to see common sense reforms such as allowing survivorship rights etc. next of kin rights without wanting to extend everything about marriage. The side accusing of being a hater simply does not allow any such distinction. It is black and white. Agree with me or you are a hater.
Why is this employed? Saying I disagree with you doesn't make you a bad person, but saying you are a hater means you have no right to be involved in any responsible discussion in our society. Why would we let you speak? You are a hater. The list of the subjects that can make you a hater could go on and on. Most often in my experience they involve some sacred subject of the church of political correctness. Common Sense would dictate we actually talk to one another. But that doesn't fit into a text message or a tweet or a face book comment now does it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)