More relatives keeping schoolage children

Seattle Post Intelligencer | May 1, 2001 | Rebecca Cook

[ethical]

Agree. But I am reminded of that childhood song. "Liberals and Demos sitting in a tree p-l-o-t-i-n-g....first comes the "study" then comes the law then comes the money to finance it all!"

[pattycake]

This trash does not deserve a reply. So if relatives are unfit, then parents better look out because they are next. What a crock.

[Miss Marple]

I just want everyone to read CAREFULLY when these types of articles pop up. These liberal experts are really good at making it sound like whatever loony scheme they have concocted is "official." The press, as in the case of this Seattle paper, is often in on it.

All stories that assemble opinions of "experts" and "unnamed sources" should be read very, very carefully.

[MissAmericanPie]

"This is a very critical development phase. They soak up learning like sponges," said University of Washington Senior Research Fellow Richard Brandon, co-author of the study. "We need people appropriately trained to teach (indoctrinate) them."

I'm sure these "educators" have been very impressed by the Palestinian indoctrination of their suicide bombers from cradle to self destruction and are wetting their pants over the prospect of socially engineering unsuspecting babies to the acceptance of everything from homosexuality to diversity sensitivity training.

Given the state of parenting today I'm sure a majority of parents will be happy for the help and those that are not will be labled radical right wing extremists, or the ever popular Christian right wing radical extremist whose children will need to be taken and rescued from their mentally ill world view.

[moyden]

The liberal is a fascist thug who craves government control of all parenting.

[ravingnutter]

So if relatives are unfit, then parents better look out because they are next.

That idea has been around for awhile...

The Rationale for Licensing Parents

[tcostell]

...relatives who often lack formal training and government oversight...

I can't believe the nerve of these people. I will take the care of my mother in law, (my daughters caring and attentive grandparent who has a biological imperative to protect her, and would happily dive in front of an oncoming car to keep her safe) over the care of a government employee any day. And to propose that having government oversite would improve the quality of that care is ludicrous. What idiots!

BTW, my wife is a full time mom, my mother in law only fills in for the fun of it, or to give my wife the occasional break.

[Kozak]

Oh my gosh!!!! Grandparents, uncles, aunts, sisters, brothers none of them are qualified to take care of children ONLY government sanctioned employees

Yup. Preferably government (Union) employees with the dedication of the DMV, the compassion of the VA and the efficiency of the Post office. Its FOR THE CHILDREN

[Maceman]

This study is the first to include paid grandparents and other relatives who care for many of the nation's children.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can assure you that my little girl is not "the nation's child." While I accept that the government has a legitimate role in protecting victims of serious child abuse, I am constantly amazed at the arrogance of the professional social engineers who think they are somehow entitled to be involved in -- or even direct -- the raising of other people's children.

[Maceman]

But I am reminded of that childhood song. "Liberals and Demos sitting in a tree p-l-o-t-i-n-g....first comes the "study" then comes the law then comes the money to finance it all!" "Plotting" has two Ts in it.

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

Very Good !! !!

I believe that ol' Ronnie covered this one, with:
"...Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem....
We've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of government himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden..."

~~ Ronald Reagan

[Salman]

And how much "formal training" do the parents have? Hmmm?
Sergeant Schultz has entered the building!

[ethical]

But I am reminded of that childhood song. "Liberals and Demos sitting in a tree p-l-o-t-i-n-g....first comes the "study" then comes the law then comes the money to finance it all!" "Plotting" has two Ts in it.

I know Maceman but not if it is going to match the cadence of "k-i-s-s-i-n-g" see, seven letters.

[spokanite]

Just another step to make our children property of the state. So, I guess this also means that stay at home moms are not qualified as well?

[ethical]

So, I guess this also means that stay at home moms are not qualified as well?

Excellent point. If Grandparents are not qualified then why would their grown up children who are full time moms be qualified?

[CDHart]

I think this one merits a big BARF ALERT!

Carolyn

[yoe]

"... violate all constitutional rights in order to make sure things are done right.

Who says that liberals can be sure things are done right? By whose standards? I know it's their nature to meddle in areas that do not concern them, i.e. the rights of other people and all public places, but that does not mean they are right; right?

[gore3000]

Oh my gosh!!!! Grandparents, uncles, aunts, sisters, brothers none of them are qualified to take care of children ONLY government sanctioned employees.

Yup, those stupid folk can give those kids something which no government can - love.

[gore3000]

I would rather an 'untrained' family member care for my children than any by-the-book trained government person practicing the same failed methods of childcare as the public schools demonstrate.

Good point! Those dumb people that have never taken an education course are homeschooling their children and giving them a much better education than those phd's and other overeducated snobs.