This one really pisses me off.   If I get profane, I apologize in advance.

An eight year old boy may be removed from his home because his parents are deemed by government to be abusing him.   Connor McCreaddie may be taken away from his mother because he weighs too much and because his mother continually misses government agency-arranged appointments with with nurses, nutritionists and social workers.

Nurses and social workers?   What do they know about anything?   Most of them are like the rest of us - don't possess any real specialized information.   They're just muddling through, earning a paycheck.   And these nurses, nutritionists and social workers are on the government dole - they're substandard,. not even good nurses, nutritionists and social workers!

Who exactly confers the right on government to interfere with people's live in this manner?   The government would respond that child protection laws do exactly that.   And "brilliant" second-rate therapists agree.   They claim, "Child abuse is not just about hitting your children or sexually abusing them, it is also about neglect."   OK, we'll buy that one for the sake of argument.   But let's extrapolate it a bit, shall we.

I think we should remove any child from dangerous parents who fail to provide an adequate moral underpinning.   That would cause almost every politician to lose his or her child since they routinely set a bad example by lying.   Also, anyone who fails to get their kid to some sort of religious study would fall into this category unless they could affirmatively prove they had found a valid substitute, one which meets with generally accepted principles of morality as judged by some objective standards.

Of course, any parent who failed to prevent their child from having sex before the age of majority would lose all parental rights.   The same would be true for not just smoking but any alcoholic beverage or illicit drugs.   All anorexics should become wards of the state under its magnificent protective custody.   Any kid who failed to get the precisely correct amount of exercise, or sleep, or protein, or strach under scientifically determined guidelines would also qualify for protective custody.   Kids who do not attain at least C's, perhaps B's, in school should similarly be removed from their homes since that's as sure a sign of neglect as anything else.

Appearance also plays a role.   Acne?   Why didn't the parents take their kid to a dermatologist every day to make sure that didn't happen?   Not particularly pretty or handsome due to neglect of appearance?   Blame the parents!   Your smile is not wide enough, your lips not full enough, there are steps one can take such as those awful palate splitters to make a kid more perfect.   Why can't some of these parents give up one vacation a year to pay for plastic surgery.   Studies have shown large percentages of the populace gets plastic surgery every year - so that's a societal norm.   If you don't adhere, you are neglectful.

What about some common personality traits?   Wall flower?   That's a total neglect of the social needs of the kid.   Overly boastful, sorry kid, you are going to be placed into a foster home as soon as we can find one.   For now you'll be in the orphanage under the tutelage of brother Paul, the sodomizer.   Enjoy your stay in government protective custody.   It would have been better if your parents had raised you better but they didn't so now we have to put you in the orphanage.

At what place have we arrived where we are willing to just sit still and watch the government determine precisely how much we should weigh, what we should eat, who is neglectful?   While we are examining the children of our politicians, why don't we also take a look at all the children of the psychologists, social workers, nutritionists and nurses, the under-trained, under-educated over-glorified "professionals - who state emphatically that neglect is the same thing as having your head bashed in by your father or mother.   If we looked long enough, we could easily build a case to have their children removed from their imperfect homes.

Just who is qualified to judge neglect?   What standards do we agree to?   When do we get to judge the judgers?   The government can't protect the kids who are actually being beaten or sodomized by their relatives in their homes.   But now they want to take a kid for being fat!   What complete rubbish!

Don't just sit still for this sort of Big Brotherism.   Take to the streets and protest this improper fuctioning of ineffectual government.   Take to the streets and let them know we won't stand for this.   Burn the houses to the ground of those who advocate taking a child from his parents absent real abuse.   Refocus their attention to their own shortcomings.   The time has come to rise up and overthrow the do-gooders who are so sure they know exactly how everyone else should live.

Follow-up:

The boy has been granted permission to stay with his mother.   At least this time, the government exercised good judgment.

Labels: big brother, government