Is there any greater science stopper than "sheer dumb luck"? I don't think so.

WOL (Wincing Out Loud.)

I aim to please:

Intelligent Reasoning

Catch-22: either the State ignores low-grade child neglect (bad), or terminates parental rights in such cases (bad), or tries interventions (bad).

Sorry it's an imperfect world.

Now, could we please get some creationists saying something stupid, so that Steve & I can make nice again?

Great idea! Political non-starter! Next!

Don't you care about the children?!?!?!

Yes, but by ponying up the money, thatâ??s exactly what â??youâ?? are doing, via your good friend and delegate, The State.

No, the State is doing, and doing it badly, IMO. This is why we have the State looking into prohibiting running on playgrounds, and yet getting all bothered about kids getting fatter.

In that case, you are already dying the Slow Death of One Million Pinpricks, and you should be a LOT more engaged about how your moneyâ??s being pissed away in, say, Iraq, than about trying to help some kids.

Well there are lots of things that annoy me about how the government spends money. Just because I don't have time to blog about every stupid thing the government wastes money doesn't mean I'm not annoyed with them.

Oh and some of them aren't pin-pricks...some are pretty big.

Sorry, not following: your right to neglect your children, or your right not to pay taxes to help anyone but yourself? Or did I miss Door # 3?

No kidding you aren't following...

My point was that the State disrespects my rights when it comes to things like my life. Now I have to spend part of my life working to pay for other people who neglect their children. Basically the State enables this kind of thing when it goes out and tries to fix it.

(With ya on the â??stray dogâ??/â??babyâ?? paradox, but see â??political non-starter,â?? above.)

Maybe we need to take a page out of the People's Republic of China's handbook here.

Great idea! Political non-starter! Next!

If Iâ??m going to pony up the money, I want the right to check out my neighbors parenting skills.

Yes, but by ponying up the money, that's exactly what "you" are doing, via your good friend and delegate, The State.

But it is enough to take a small bit of my life away from me.

In that case, you are already dying the Slow Death of One Million Pinpricks, and you should be a LOT more engaged about how your money's being pissed away in, say, Iraq, than about trying to help some kids.

By disrespecting my rights.

Sorry, not following: your right to neglect your children, or your right not to pay taxes to help anyone but yourself? Or did I miss Door # 3?

(With ya on the "stray dog"/"baby" paradox, but see "political non-starter," above.)

Lots of parents neglect their childrenâ??s health.

Then maybe the state should regulate who becomes a parent?

Is the Stateâ??s attitude supposed to be â??sorry kids, but you got bad parents, so your health is nobodyâ??s businessâ???

But why does it have to be my business if a parent wants to let their kid(s) play Gamecube instead of getting exercise and doing homework? If I'm going to pony up the money, I want the right to check out my neighbors parenting skills.

OTOH, failing to take your kid to the doctor is not the kind of thing we terminate parental rights for, as a rule.

But it is enough to take a small bit of my life away from me. I know sounds like hyberpole, but lets run through it. The state says, "We need to conduct vision tests which will cost more money." So they raise my taxes. This means that part of my income is taken. But I got that income by selling my time. My time is my life.

So laws like the ones derided above strike me as an attempt at compromise: respecting in large part parental rights over the children, while trying to intervene to protect the children.

By disrespecting my rights.

Itâ??s debatable, but I donâ??t think the state should be mocked quite so roundly.

Why not? Try getting a stray dog in our society. Many places you go to will ask you all sorts of questions, they'll want the whole family there to make sure everyone gets along with the dog, including other family pets. You have describe how you'll do things like house break the dog, and whether or not somebody will be home during the day, etc.

But you want to have a kid; no questions asked. Can't support it, no problem everybody else will. You can't get off your rump to take the kid to the doctor 1 to 2 times a year? No problem, we'll just raise taxes and have the schools do it (never mind reading or math).

This is very, very mockable. And our society has made it so.

Lots of parents neglect their children's health. Perhaps b/c of poverty, perhaps b/c of stupidity or wickedness. Anyway, it happens, and it's not a rarity.

Is the State's attitude supposed to be "sorry kids, but you got bad parents, so your health is nobody's business"?

OTOH, failing to take your kid to the doctor is not the kind of thing we terminate parental rights for, as a rule.

So laws like the ones derided above strike me as an attempt at compromise: respecting in large part parental rights over the children, while trying to intervene to protect the children.

It's debatable, but I don't think the state should be mocked quite so roundly.

I bet most parents don�t need a note home to let them know if their kid is over/underweight. And the solution is pretty straightforward: more activity (i.e. less television, less video games) and less junk food.

Sadly, many parents do. they are in denial about how heavy their kids actually are. That said, I doubt that a note or a school based education program will make much difference. The real danger comes when it doesn't make much difference and some one proposes even more invasive and restrictive regulations. A free society should be able to find better solutions. Weight related discounts on health insurance might be a possibility.

Well, how would you propose going about public health education about increasing rates of juvenile diabetes?

Uhhhmmm taking your kid to the doctor? Shocking I know.

I mean, youâ??re already paying for the health complications of untreated diabetes in your insurance premiums, so Iâ??m unsure how the school simply giving people more information - increasing the options available after getting that information - constitutes nanny-statism.

Probably because the untreated diabetes impact on insurance premiums is another form of statism. That shouldn't be covered under insurance. Insurance should be for the unexpected. Being obese pretty much comes with adverse health issues. It is like having pregnancy covered by insurance.

As the commenter mentioned above, they checked me for vision problems as a kid, and lice, and scoliosis. Was that â??nanny-statism,â?? as well?

Yep. Funny, we manage to take our kid to the eye doctor at least once a year.

I could see how these bits of legislation could turn into government meddling, but schools looking out for the health of kids isnâ??t traditionally seen as the hand of Big Government run amok â?¦

Telling kids what to eat, how much to eat, when to eat, etc. is the government running amok.

If the State wants to continue paying for health care, they better protect their investment (ie. confiscated income) by lowering the risk of paying out in the future.

Big Tobacco.

Now it is Big Sugar.

Soon it will be Big Meat?

Absolutely. The government is paying for it, so one way to control costs is to control what people put in their bodies.

This is another attack on the family by the socialist totalitarians that control the Democratic party.

Death to the socialists.

Big Tobacco.

Now it is Big Sugar.

Soon it will be Big Meat?

I also am not comfortable with the schools screening for diabetes, since it involves testing a bit more invasive than a hearing or eye screening does.