What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
Here's a bit of the report
http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...bese-children/
Polly

On 14/07/2011 2:58 PM, Polly Esther wrote:
> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from
> their parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like
> a plan to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take
> them?


I agree that the parents are doing their children a big disservice when
they allow them to become fat. I know of a few cases where kids who were
quite chunky ended up slimming down in childhood. Then there is the Big
Niece was a big kid with a big appetite who changed from stocky to plump
to obese in her late teens, and who just keeps getting bigger.

I don`t see taking the kids away from their parents benefiting anyone,
and especially not the kids. Maybe the schools should get back to
mandatory phys ed classes and failing those who can`t pass. And not just
fail phys ed,... fail the year. Use some leverage to make them more
active and eat less. We have enough `normal`people who put on too much
weight as adults. For the life of me, I don`t understand how people can
allow themselves to become 100 pounds or more overweight. When you are
getting to the point where who are as big around as you are high, you
really should be doing something about it.

In article >,
"Polly Esther" > wrote:

> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?

Sounds fine to me as long as they take away the super-skinny ones too.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On Jul 14, 2:58*pm, "Polly Esther" > wrote:
> What do you think about this? *Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. *Sounds like a plan
> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
> Here's a bit of the reporthttp://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/07/14/harvard-prof-says-pa...
> Polly

First off, who's to say that some of the larger children don't have a
specific problem that makes them that way. It isn't ALWAYS the parents
fault. Even if it is the parents' fault, how can the government just
take so many children away? Because the obesity problem is through the
roof lately, hundreds, maybe even thousands of children would be taken
away from their homes throughout the country and then what? Put into
foster homes? That would then in turn put the country into more of a
deficit due to paying foster parents and orphanages.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:13:16 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> I don`t see taking the kids away from their parents benefiting anyone,
> and especially not the kids.

Maybe it should be treated for what it is, child abuse. Parents would
need mandatory classes and physical exercise should be part of the
sentence. I don't see anything like that happening at any point
because people who abuse illegal drugs have a hard time finding
treatment. They're only abusing food.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Polly Esther wrote:
>
> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
> Here's a bit of the report
> http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...bese-children/
> Polly

Take away is probably a bit much, but some court ordered nutrition and
cooking classes might not be a bad idea.

Polly Esther wrote:
> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from
> their parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds
> like a plan to me but what is the state going to do with them when
> they take them? Here's a bit of the report
> http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...bese-children/
> Polly

Just why do you think this is a plan? Some kids have medical problems that
make them overweight. I used to feel sorry for my friend's younger brother.
He was very active in sports and his mom had him on a very strict diet
because he was overweight. He had a thyroid problem. He ate so little and
weighed so much. My friend was also a tad overweight but only through her
hips and butt. Her mom put her on a really strict diet too. Boiled eggs
for breakfast. Some kind of yucky looking bar for lunch. Broiled chicken
or fish and veg for dinner. Didn't cause her to lose weight.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:33:55 +1200, Miche > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Polly Esther" > wrote:
>
>> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
>> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
>> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
>
>Sounds fine to me as long as they take away the super-skinny ones too.

And the low IQ ones.

Miche wrote:
> In article >,
> "Polly Esther" > wrote:
>
>> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from
>> their parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds
>> like a plan to me but what is the state going to do with them when
>> they take them?
>
> Sounds fine to me as long as they take away the super-skinny ones too.

I was one of the super skinny ones and it wasn't my parent's fault. I ate.
And ate and ate. But I couldn't gain an ounce. Yes I was active. I can
remember my friend and I stuffing ourselves with food until we felt sick and
then sitting in the kitchen chairs just staring at each other in the hopes
of not burning any calories and putting on weight. She was skinny too but
she was short. AFAIK people didn't make fun of her. I was very tall so it
earned me the nickname of Lt. Twig. Twiggy was popular in those days and so
was the original Star Trek. At came we did a Star Trek skit and that was
the name I was given. It stuck.

And now I am fat. And I don't overeat. For many years this was difficult
for me because I was used to eating so much for so long. I had to learn to
cut back and ignore hunger. Now this is easy to do with he gastroparesis.
For the most part I do not feel hungry any more and sometimes I have to
force myself to eat. Yes, once in a while I will feel hungry. But more
often it will be what I call "eye hunger". I see something. A picture of
food. An ad on TV. A recipe. And that looks appealing. So I will want
it. But I am not taking in excess calories. I know this because I
downloaded the Cron-O-Meter and for several weeks I ran all of everything I
consumed through it to see where I stood nutritionally. Apparently I am
severely lacking in vitamin E. But taking in mostly 1,000 calories per day.
Once in a while as much as 1,200 calories a day. Hardly excess.

As for kids, I have seen all manner of things. Extremely picky kids who are
malnourished because they will eat little more than pasta, white rice and
white bread. The one example I am thinking of is in counseling to overcome
her food aversions. For some reason she believes if she eats other foods
they will make her sick. I could understand this if she had an allergic
reaction to a food or for some other reason fell ill after eating some food.
But this isn't the case.

Another girl is the youngest of a large family. Her mother has admitted
that she doesn't feed her dinner till 10:00 at night and she doesn't know
what she eats for the rest of the day. And I haven't seen her eat much
aside from candy and fruit. She is allowed to pack her own meals. My
daughter is also allowed to pack her own meals but they have to be
nutritionally sound. There has to be a protein, a starch a vegetable and
usually also a fruit.

Another girl's mother complains that she is having low blood sugar and yet I
have yet to see her eat a whole meal. The mom does not allow it. She will
feed her a couple of bites of a protein bar, a few grapes or a cracker. The
girl will complain that she is hungry but the mother won't let her have a
meal. This girl is by no means overweight but is also not skinny scrawny.
She will take her at times to McDonalds for something called a "Chicken
Snacker". Now I don't know for sure what this is because I don't darken
their door but it sounds to me like a snack and not a meal.

I buy things from time to time for my husband that he does not eat and we
can not eat. Like energy bars, cupcakes and cookies. Sometimes he eats
these things. Sometimes not. I never know. If he doesn't eat them I will
take them to the dance studio before they go bad. I have seen some of the
skinniest kids, eating these in secret and wolfing down quantities that
would make my stomach hurt! One such girl is on a strict diet and the mom
said she is not allowed sugar. However she has given the girl sugar in lieu
of meals on occasion. And she says the girl won't eat her meals.

So I have seen all manner of things. I do not think you can tell what type
of foods the child has been eating based on their size alone. Once in a
while I will see some sort of skin rash that makes me think the child might
have a food allergy that is either being ignored or is not known. And in
the case of the girl with the food aversions, I suspect celiac based on
several things the mother has told me. Such as crumbling teeth and lack of
growth. This girl looks to be many years younger than she is.

There is also something called Prader Willi. It is a medical condition that
causes the sufferer to want to eat huge amounts of food. They never feel
full. But there is a lot more to it than the eating. The people who suffer
from this have something wrong with their brains. They do not develop
normally physically and can have learning disabilities. They tend to be
overweight even when placed on a strict diet of 800 calories per day and
according to the show I watched on this that is all the calories their
bodies need.

Then there is Down Syndrome. People who suffer from this also tend to be
overweight.

And I am sure there are a lot of other syndomes or maladies that I don't
even know of. Should we take all children away that are not of a certain
weight? I think not.

I don't know the answer. I do see parents who IMO are not feeding their
children properly. In some cases perhaps they don't know what is right. Or
maybe they do deep down inside but are doing otherwise. At least in this
area, nutrition is covered in school. In many grades. My daughter knows
what she is supposed to eat.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:51:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Jul 14, 2:58*pm, "Polly Esther" > wrote:
>> What do you think about this? *Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
>> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. *Sounds like a plan
>> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
>> Here's a bit of the reporthttp://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/07/14/harvard-prof-says-pa...
>> Polly
>
>First off, who's to say that some of the larger children don't have a
>specific problem that makes them that way. It isn't ALWAYS the parents
>fault. Even if it is the parents' fault, how can the government just
>take so many children away? Because the obesity problem is through the
>roof lately, hundreds, maybe even thousands of children would be taken
>away from their homes throughout the country and then what? Put into
>foster homes? That would then in turn put the country into more of a
>deficit due to paying foster parents and orphanages.

Of course not... don't be stupid... just drown the fat *******s!
LOL-LOL

wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:58 pm, "Polly Esther" > wrote:
>> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from
>> their
>> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a
>> plan
>> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take
>> them?
>> Here's a bit of the
>> reporthttp://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/07/14/harvard-prof-says-pa...
>> Polly
>
> First off, who's to say that some of the larger children don't have a
> specific problem that makes them that way. It isn't ALWAYS the parents
> fault. Even if it is the parents' fault, how can the government just
> take so many children away? Because the obesity problem is through the
> roof lately, hundreds, maybe even thousands of children would be taken
> away from their homes throughout the country and then what? Put into
> foster homes? That would then in turn put the country into more of a
> deficit due to paying foster parents and orphanages.

From statistics I have read, it isn't just the kids who are overweight. It
is a rampant problem in every state of the United States and in other
countries as well. Yes, people say it is from HFCS or hormones in milk but
I'm not buying that. Maybe that is the case to some extent. But I don't
consume those things. So for me it is not the answer.

On 07/14/2011 11:58 AM, Polly Esther wrote:
> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from
> their parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like
> a plan to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take
> them?

When it's happened in the past (and it has), the children have been
quietly returned to their parents, because they didn't lose weight in
foster care. Oh, gosh, traumatizing kids doesn't make them thin? Huge
surprise.

Serene

--
http://www.momfoodproject.com

On 07/14/2011 12:33 PM, Miche wrote:
> In >,
> "Polly > wrote:
>
>> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
>> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
>> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
>
> Sounds fine to me as long as they take away the super-skinny ones too.

I hope you're just being caustic here and not serious, Miche.

Serene

--
http://www.momfoodproject.com

On 14/07/2011 6:56 PM, Julie Bove wrote:

>
> Just why do you think this is a plan? Some kids have medical problems that
> make them overweight. I used to feel sorry for my friend's younger brother.
> He was very active in sports and his mom had him on a very strict diet
> because he was overweight. He had a thyroid problem.


For every overweight kid with a thyroid problem there are dozens who
just eat too damned much and/or eat the wrong kind of food. Their
parents give them them soft drinks, chips, juice and cookies. Then they
sit around and watch television and play video games. That's why they
are fat.

"Stu" <> wrote
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:58:11 -0500, "Polly Esther" <> wrote:
>
>>What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>>Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
>>parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
>>to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
>>Here's a bit of the report
>>http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...bese-children/
>>Polly
>
> Yes I saw the same piece, seems he wants child protective services to put
> them
> in foster care. Now that would definitely bankrupt your country.
>
> btw .. a nutritionist said the Harvard professor is nuts and they need to
> learn proper eating habits.

We had a neighbor who thought feeding children Lots was superior parenting.
She put sweetened condensed milk in their baby bottles. As they got older
(and rounder) if she fried chicken for supper, she'd fry one for him, one
for her and one for each of their offspring. We've been gone from that
neighborhood a long time; don't know if any of them lived through it or not
.... but I'd guess: not. Polly

"Mark Thorson" <> A much better idea is to have posters in classrooms
> that heap ridicule and scorn on fat kids. Fat people
> get heart attacks! Fat people look fat! Fat people
> eat while people starve! Fat people contribute to
> global warming!
>
> That would work. Or, at least it's worth trying.
> It would be a lot cheaper.
>
> It's coming. I can feel it. Fat will be the new
> smoking.

Mark, you're a sight. You know that? It is a serious problem. Dr.
Rosenthal on 'House calls' said recently that overweight children have a
much greater incidence of cancer as adults. If diabetes isn't tough
enough - there's one more.
Maybe we could just send them to camp. I well remember my camp
summers. Up before dawn, always something exhausting going on and everybody
was so hungry at mealtime there were no picky eaters. ( I was a picky eater
but was so glad to get something to eat I'd have tried Armadillo.) Polly

In article >,
Serene Vannoy > wrote:

> On 07/14/2011 12:33 PM, Miche wrote:
> > In >,
> > "Polly > wrote:
> >
> >> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> >> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
> >> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
> >> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
> >
> > Sounds fine to me as long as they take away the super-skinny ones too.
>
> I hope you're just being caustic here and not serious, Miche.

Of course I'm just being caustic. I would NEVER suggest a child be
taken away from their parents on the basis of one number.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:

> Miche wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Polly Esther" > wrote:
> >
> >> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> >> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from
> >> their parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds
> >> like a plan to me but what is the state going to do with them when
> >> they take them?
> >
> > Sounds fine to me as long as they take away the super-skinny ones too.
>
> I was one of the super skinny ones and it wasn't my parent's fault.

Exactly my point.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
.com...
> On 14/07/2011 6:56 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>>
>> Just why do you think this is a plan? Some kids have medical problems
>> that
>> make them overweight. I used to feel sorry for my friend's younger
>> brother.
>> He was very active in sports and his mom had him on a very strict diet
>> because he was overweight. He had a thyroid problem.
>
>
> For every overweight kid with a thyroid problem there are dozens who just
> eat too damned much and/or eat the wrong kind of food. Their parents give
> them them soft drinks, chips, juice and cookies. Then they sit around and
> watch television and play video games. That's why they are fat.

That could be. In this area there just aren't a lot of fat kids and the
ones I do know of don't seem to eat junk.

I'm just saying that you can't tell by looking at someone what all they eat.
Unless of course it is smeared all over their face and shirt or they are
holding a fast food bag.

"Polly Esther" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stu" <> wrote
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:58:11 -0500, "Polly Esther" <> wrote:
>>
>>>What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>>>Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
>>>parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a
>>>plan
>>>to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
>>>Here's a bit of the report
>>>http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...bese-children/
>>>Polly
>>
>> Yes I saw the same piece, seems he wants child protective services to put
>> them
>> in foster care. Now that would definitely bankrupt your country.
>>
>> btw .. a nutritionist said the Harvard professor is nuts and they need
>> to
>> learn proper eating habits.
>
> We had a neighbor who thought feeding children Lots was superior
> parenting. She put sweetened condensed milk in their baby bottles. As
> they got older (and rounder) if she fried chicken for supper, she'd fry
> one for him, one for her and one for each of their offspring. We've been
> gone from that neighborhood a long time; don't know if any of them lived
> through it or not ... but I'd guess: not. Polly

Sadly this was my grandma's school of thought. She thought fat was
healthier. My dad said in those days it was ideal to have a fat baby. And
he was one.

Polly Esther wrote:
>
> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?

A much better idea is to have posters in classrooms
that heap ridicule and scorn on fat kids. Fat people
get heart attacks! Fat people look fat! Fat people
eat while people starve! Fat people contribute to
global warming!

That would work. Or, at least it's worth trying.
It would be a lot cheaper.

It's coming. I can feel it. Fat will be the new
smoking.

"Polly Esther" > wrote in message
...
> "Mark Thorson" <> A much better idea is to have posters in classrooms
>> that heap ridicule and scorn on fat kids. Fat people
>> get heart attacks! Fat people look fat! Fat people
>> eat while people starve! Fat people contribute to
>> global warming!
>>
>> That would work. Or, at least it's worth trying.
>> It would be a lot cheaper.
>>
>> It's coming. I can feel it. Fat will be the new
>> smoking.
>
> Mark, you're a sight. You know that? It is a serious problem. Dr.
> Rosenthal on 'House calls' said recently that overweight children have a
> much greater incidence of cancer as adults. If diabetes isn't tough
> enough - there's one more.
> Maybe we could just send them to camp. I well remember my camp
> summers. Up before dawn, always something exhausting going on and
> everybody was so hungry at mealtime there were no picky eaters. ( I was a
> picky eater but was so glad to get something to eat I'd have tried
> Armadillo.) Polly

I remember camp too. Cold showers and crap food. Peanut butter and mint
jelly sandwiches. And a suitcase full of candy that my mom sent.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 14/07/2011 6:56 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>>
>> Just why do you think this is a plan? Some kids have medical problems
>> that
>> make them overweight. I used to feel sorry for my friend's younger
>> brother.
>> He was very active in sports and his mom had him on a very strict diet
>> because he was overweight. He had a thyroid problem.
>
>
> For every overweight kid with a thyroid problem there are dozens who
> just eat too damned much and/or eat the wrong kind of food. Their
> parents give them them soft drinks, chips, juice and cookies. Then they
> sit around and watch television and play video games. That's why they
> are fat.
>
if a kid's thyroid is really that deficient to be fat, they'd probably
not be all that active in sports either. If you don't have the metabolic
energy to burn calories, do you think you'd have any energy to play
basketball?
People use thyroid dysfunction as an excuse far too often. Once a person
is on replacement med therapy, that excuse should be pretty well invalid.

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Julie Bove" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> "Giusi" wrote in message
>
>
>>> I think it's not just parents but the culture at fault. When kids ran
>>> outside to play kick the can and could ride their bikes for miles to go
>>> fishing, they were less fat. We sell them Nintendo, Wii, PlayStation,
>>> and gear movies and TV to 12 year old boys and what do you think will
>>> happen?
>>
>> Kids can not do those sorts of things any more in many places because it
>> is just not safe to do so. And here it is cold and cloudy much of the
>> time. Nobody wants to hang around outside in conditions like that.
>
> What do you think they did before TV? I'll bet if you talk to someone
> over 60 they'll tell you they did all the same games other kids did. Kids
> don't care about gloomy, grownups care.

That's not true. I wouldn't go outside to play when it was cold and rainy
nor would my mother let me. My daughter HATES playing outside. Too many
bugs and too much dirt.
>
> There is a big question about whether it is more dangerous or just more
> reported. If it is more dangerous, then change the culture. Make it safe
> for kids to group up and play. Bring back sidewalks. Runmble strip cul
> de sacs. Police parks. Kids live in the streets and survive in war
> zones, for crying out loud.

We have sidewalks here. We've had two out of control cars in the past few
years go up onto the sidewalk. My husband's car was hit and then the
neighbor two doors down. Drunk drivers.

It is not safe to let kids play outside alone because there are just too
many weirdos out there. And too much lack of police. We don't live in the
city limits. There is a park across the street from us. No way would I let
my daughter go there without me. Too much drug activity going on. Oh and
the gangs have tagged this area now too.

Just because some kids live in the streets and survive war zones doesn't
make it a good thing!

In article >,
"Giusi" > wrote:

> What do you think they did before TV? I'll bet if you talk to someone over
> 60 they'll tell you they did all the same games other kids did. Kids don't
> care about gloomy, grownups care.

A couple of weeks ago, I took my granddaughters past a gas station. I
told them that it was a trampoline park in 1962 when I was fifteen. I
explained that lawsuits and insurance premiums killed all of the
trampoline parks off.
Today, in our local rag, I see that trampoline parks are making a
comeback. I suspect they won't be here for very long.
I miss the old days when local issues didn't become national laws. I'm
amazed that kids can still ski without inciting a bad parenting rap.

leo

"Leonard Blaisdell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>> What do you think they did before TV? I'll bet if you talk to someone
>> over
>> 60 they'll tell you they did all the same games other kids did. Kids
>> don't
>> care about gloomy, grownups care.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I took my granddaughters past a gas station. I
> told them that it was a trampoline park in 1962 when I was fifteen. I
> explained that lawsuits and insurance premiums killed all of the
> trampoline parks off.
> Today, in our local rag, I see that trampoline parks are making a
> comeback. I suspect they won't be here for very long.
> I miss the old days when local issues didn't become national laws. I'm
> amazed that kids can still ski without inciting a bad parenting rap.

I think skiing is too dangerous and I wouldn't allow my daughter to do it.
Thankfully she sees it as dangerous too.

"Leonard Blaisdell" > ha scritto nel messaggio

> "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>> What do you think they did before TV? I'll bet if you talk to someone
>> over
>> 60 they'll tell you they did all the same games other kids did. Kids
>> don't
>> care about gloomy, grownups care.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I took my granddaughters past a gas station. I
> told them that it was a trampoline park in 1962 when I was fifteen. I
> explained that lawsuits and insurance premiums killed all of the
> trampoline parks off.
> Today, in our local rag, I see that trampoline parks are making a
> comeback. I suspect they won't be here for very long.
> I miss the old days when local issues didn't become national laws. I'm
> amazed that kids can still ski without inciting a bad parenting rap.

They've redesigned trampolines to make them safer. There is a soft "fence"
just inside the support so that a kid can't hit his neck or head on that
metal anymore. I saw them at the beach. I suspect there will still be
waiver policies, and certainly age signs.

On Jul 14, 6:26*pm, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 11:58 AM, Polly Esther wrote:
>
> > What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
> > Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from
> > their parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like
> > a plan to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take
> > them?
>
> When it's happened in the past (and it has), the children have been
> quietly returned to their parents, because they didn't lose weight in
> foster care. *Oh, gosh, traumatizing kids doesn't make them thin? Huge
> surprise.

Keeping them the heck away from carbohydrates makes them thin.
>
> Serene
>
--Bryan

On Jul 14, 10:13*pm, "Polly Esther" > wrote:
> "Mark Thorson" <> A much better idea is to have posters in classrooms
>
> > that heap ridicule and scorn on fat kids. *Fat people
> > get heart attacks! *Fat people look fat! *Fat people
> > eat while people starve! *Fat people contribute to
> > global warming!
>
> > That would work. *Or, at least it's worth trying.
> > It would be a lot cheaper.
>
> > It's coming. *I can feel it. *Fat will be the new
> > smoking.
>
> Mark, you're a sight. *You know that? It is a serious problem. *Dr.
> Rosenthal on 'House calls' said recently that overweight children have a
> much greater incidence of cancer as adults. *If diabetes isn't tough
> enough - there's one more.
> * * *Maybe we could just send them to camp. *I well remember my camp
> summers. *Up before dawn, always something exhausting going on and everybody
> was so hungry at mealtime there were no picky eaters. *( I was a picky eater
> but was so glad to get something to eat I'd have tried Armadillo.) Polly

Fat camp where there are no foods above about 25 on the glycemic
index.

--Bryan

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:59:12 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>"Polly Esther" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
>> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
>> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
>> Here's a bit of the report
>> http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...bese-children/
>> Polly
>
>I think it's not just parents but the culture at fault. When kids ran
>outside to play kick the can and could ride their bikes for miles to go
>fishing, they were less fat. We sell them Nintendo, Wii, PlayStation, and
>gear movies and TV to 12 year old boys and what do you think will happen?

Bingo! We have a winner! Thing is the parents are the culture. The
only exercise kids nowadays participate in regularly is opening the
fridge door and texting. Today kids are on the phone and eating 24/7,
and they don't have a choice. When I was growing up kids were not
permitted to use the phone or open the fridge without permission, no
TV without permission either, an dof course no cushy computer chairs
to lounge in hour after hour after hour. The streets were safe for
play because every mother was home watching out for every kid in the
hood. There was no fast food, today preparing dinner means rolling
through the drive-thru. Nowadays women have full time jobs out of the
home, they are NOT mothering. I'm really suprised that more kids
aren't abducted, raped, and murdered. Let's not punish the fat kids,
let's punish the fat heads who *play* at parenting. If you're not
there to parent your kid than you need to be removed from the home,
and prosecuted/incarcerated for criminal negligence... needing a
career is no excuse... if you can't afford a kid you need to keep your
legs closed and learn to swallow... if a guy can't afford a kid with
his wife staying home he needs to have a vasectomy, because he is
definitely not a man. If you have kids and can't afford them then you
are not a man and a women, you are kids having kids... actually the
truth be told yer just a pimp and a ho.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who foists their kids off on anyone
else to tend to is just as guilty of a felonius crime as any common
child molester, even moreso... farm livestock are far better tended to
than how the fat heads tend to kids.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:13:33 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Leonard Blaisdell" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Giusi" > wrote:
>>
>>> What do you think they did before TV? I'll bet if you talk to someone
>>> over
>>> 60 they'll tell you they did all the same games other kids did. Kids
>>> don't
>>> care about gloomy, grownups care.
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago, I took my granddaughters past a gas station. I
>> told them that it was a trampoline park in 1962 when I was fifteen. I
>> explained that lawsuits and insurance premiums killed all of the
>> trampoline parks off.
>> Today, in our local rag, I see that trampoline parks are making a
>> comeback. I suspect they won't be here for very long.
>> I miss the old days when local issues didn't become national laws. I'm
>> amazed that kids can still ski without inciting a bad parenting rap.
>
>I think skiing is too dangerous and I wouldn't allow my daughter to do it.
>Thankfully she sees it as dangerous too.

WTF is the Blaisdell imbecile yammering about... sking is far too
expensive for the average family... yer gonna ski outside your door on
the city streets... you need hundreds of bucks worth of specialized
clothing, even renting skis and boots ain't cheap, lift tickets ain't
free, and you need to travel and pay for accomodations. Only
relatively wealthy families ski. But any kid can take a sled to a
snowy hill in a public park and have a grand time for an entire day
for free. And skiing is dangerous, very much so, deadly dangerous.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:32:00 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>"Leonard Blaisdell" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
>> "Giusi" > wrote:
>>
>>> What do you think they did before TV? I'll bet if you talk to someone
>>> over
>>> 60 they'll tell you they did all the same games other kids did. Kids
>>> don't
>>> care about gloomy, grownups care.
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago, I took my granddaughters past a gas station. I
>> told them that it was a trampoline park in 1962 when I was fifteen. I
>> explained that lawsuits and insurance premiums killed all of the
>> trampoline parks off.
>> Today, in our local rag, I see that trampoline parks are making a
>> comeback. I suspect they won't be here for very long.
>> I miss the old days when local issues didn't become national laws. I'm
>> amazed that kids can still ski without inciting a bad parenting rap.
>
>They've redesigned trampolines to make them safer. There is a soft "fence"
>just inside the support so that a kid can't hit his neck or head on that
>metal anymore. I saw them at the beach. I suspect there will still be
>waiver policies, and certainly age signs.

Trampolenes sound like a very stupid idea to me... way too easy to
become seriously injured, even killed... what's wrong with ball... I
remember kids playing hard all day with only a pink rubber ball.

On 7/15/2011 12:59 AM, Giusi wrote:
> "Polly > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from their
>> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a plan
>> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
>> Here's a bit of the report
>> http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...bese-children/
>> Polly
>
> I think it's not just parents but the culture at fault. When kids ran
> outside to play kick the can and could ride their bikes for miles to go
> fishing, they were less fat. We sell them Nintendo, Wii, PlayStation, and
> gear movies and TV to 12 year old boys and what do you think will happen?
>
>


Don't forget the kids who are walking home or outdoors playing and wind
up missing, dead, and dismembered. Times, neighborhoods, and crazy
people have changed. And it's NOT just the ease of transmitting
information. Kidnapping used to be a rare and highly publicized event.
Now it's common enough to be pushed to page 3.

gloria p

"Ranée at Arabian Knits" < ha scritto nel messaggio

> "Giusi" > wrote:
>
>> What do you think they did before TV? >> There is a big question about
>> whether it is more dangerous or just more
>> reported. If it is more dangerous, then change the culture. Make it
>> safe
>> for kids to group up and play. Bring back sidewalks. Runmble strip
>> cul
>> de sacs. Police parks. Kids live in the streets and survive in war
>> zones,
>> for crying out loud.
>
> I think it's a little of both. I think the way we isolate ourselves
> makes it worse. Both because we feel we cannot trust those around us,
> and because people are less invested in caring for others around them if
> they don't know them. They are more likely to do harm or to be
> negligent if it's some stranger than if it is someone they see at
> neighborhood functions and talk to when coming home from work, or over
> the back fence.

My point is that no one can do it except the citizens. The culture has to
make having good neighborhoods, having help for delinquents and addicts,
watching out for each other and being helpful has to be more important than
a motorhome or a fishing boat or an SUV or a 42" flat screen TV. If the
neighborhood is going to hell in a handbasket, the government cannot fix it.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:59:12 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Polly Esther" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>>> What do you think about this? Yesterday ABC news was talking about a
>>> Harvard professor who suggests the gov't should take kids away from
>>> their
>>> parents if the chunky little darlings are over weight. Sounds like a
>>> plan
>>> to me but what is the state going to do with them when they take them?
>>> Here's a bit of the report
>>> http://www.imperfectparent.com/topic...bese-children/
>>> Polly
>>
>>I think it's not just parents but the culture at fault. When kids ran
>>outside to play kick the can and could ride their bikes for miles to go
>>fishing, they were less fat. We sell them Nintendo, Wii, PlayStation, and
>>gear movies and TV to 12 year old boys and what do you think will happen?
>
> Bingo! We have a winner! Thing is the parents are the culture. The
> only exercise kids nowadays participate in regularly is opening the
> fridge door and texting. Today kids are on the phone and eating 24/7,
> and they don't have a choice. When I was growing up kids were not
> permitted to use the phone or open the fridge without permission, no
> TV without permission either, an dof course no cushy computer chairs
> to lounge in hour after hour after hour. The streets were safe for
> play because every mother was home watching out for every kid in the
> hood. There was no fast food, today preparing dinner means rolling
> through the drive-thru. Nowadays women have full time jobs out of the
> home, they are NOT mothering. I'm really suprised that more kids
> aren't abducted, raped, and murdered. Let's not punish the fat kids,
> let's punish the fat heads who *play* at parenting. If you're not
> there to parent your kid than you need to be removed from the home,
> and prosecuted/incarcerated for criminal negligence... needing a
> career is no excuse... if you can't afford a kid you need to keep your
> legs closed and learn to swallow... if a guy can't afford a kid with
> his wife staying home he needs to have a vasectomy, because he is
> definitely not a man. If you have kids and can't afford them then you
> are not a man and a women, you are kids having kids... actually the
> truth be told yer just a pimp and a ho.
>
> As far as I'm concerned anyone who foists their kids off on anyone
> else to tend to is just as guilty of a felonius crime as any common
> child molester, even moreso... farm livestock are far better tended to
> than how the fat heads tend to kids.

In UK the benefits for large families are so good, they choose to have many
children. We have families where no one has ever worked and all those kids
know is how to get stuff free. We are now getting up to three generations
where no one one has ever worked and will never do so. They say they need
both parents home to take care of their family. Large families get large
council houses (paid by the state) and the houses have to be big enough to
accomodate that family. More children? bigger house, and there are reports
of them complaining because wee Chardoney hasn't got a bike yet. No sharing
rooms like the workers' children in their houses.

I used to live next door to such a family. I stayed home until my youngest
was 11 yo. Those kids next door had everything (all six) but mine had to
wait until we had saved for them and then didn't have nearly as much as they
did. The wife next door once asked me why I worked such long hours and I
said there was a lot to do.... she said... oh I don't want to be a
millionaire!!! I was a gentler person then or I might have asked here where
she thought all HER money came from if it were not for the taxes that people
like us paid!!

Some families who live in expensive areas are given large houses in places
only millionaires can affored, because they need to extra rooms. There has
been talk of moving them to less expensive areas but then the doo gooders
start to whine that they ought not to be moved. Councils are paying
thousands of £s per week to keep them in those houses... and where does the
money come from...

On 15/07/2011 11:29 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
ankfully she sees it as dangerous too.
>
> WTF is the Blaisdell imbecile yammering about... sking is far too
> expensive for the average family... yer gonna ski outside your door on
> the city streets... you need hundreds of bucks worth of specialized
> clothing, even renting skis and boots ain't cheap, lift tickets ain't
> free, and you need to travel and pay for accomodations. Only
> relatively wealthy families ski. But any kid can take a sled to a
> snowy hill in a public park and have a grand time for an entire day
> for free. And skiing is dangerous, very much so, deadly dangerous.

Curiously, skiing is a major business in many area. Entire families go
skiing. It is indeed fairly expensive to get set up for skiing, and if
you are only doing it once or twice a season it is expensive on a per
use basis. Single lift tickets are expensive, but season passes are
quite affordable. I just checked the cost passes at the ski resort next
to BiL`s chalet. You can get a night time season pass for $99, which
works for me because I prefer night skiing. They have a 5x7 pass that
offers 5 days and 7 evenings for $180. Youth and seniors anytime pass
is $480.

When my son was in high school he was in the ski club. The high school
sent three busloads of students across the border to ELlicottville NY
every Friday night. It was $185 for the bus ride and lift tickets and
something like $10 per night extra for rentals.

Skiing is great fun and great exercise. Sure people get hurt but I know
lots of people who have been hurt just as bad sledding or toboganning.

Cross Country skiing is great exercise and a lot less expensive. The
equipment is a lot cheaper and facilities are easier to find locally,
and most often are free.

I used to cross country ski and thought downhill was out of my budget.
I thought that is was a more rigorous workout. Then I tried downhill and
found out how much work it is. I discovered muscles I never knew I had
and there were times that I thought my thighs were going to explode.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:04:44 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 15/07/2011 4:43 AM, Giusi wrote:
>>
>> What do you think they did before TV? I'll bet if you talk to someone over
>> 60 they'll tell you they did all the same games other kids did. Kids don't
>> care about gloomy, grownups care.
>
>I am 60. We had TV when I was a kid but we did not spend a lot of time
>watching it. Admittedly, it was a small screen black and white, nothing
>like the wide screen colour hi def that is available now. We had an
>antennae that pulled in only 3 or 4 stations. We were not allowed to
>watch much tv. My mother used to boot us out of the house to play. We
>would head out on our bicycles and come back for meals, or pack a lunch.

Streets were much safer then... I grew up on the streets of Brooklyn,
back then a drive-by was the Good Humor man. There were no school
buses, kindergartners walked to school ... mothers walked a kid to
school the first week, that was it... kids grew up fast... today 40
year olds are still living at home, and with no responsibilities.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:44:46 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 15/07/2011 11:29 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>ankfully she sees it as dangerous too.
>>
>> WTF is the Blaisdell imbecile yammering about... sking is far too
>> expensive for the average family... yer gonna ski outside your door on
>> the city streets... you need hundreds of bucks worth of specialized
>> clothing, even renting skis and boots ain't cheap, lift tickets ain't
>> free, and you need to travel and pay for accomodations. Only
>> relatively wealthy families ski. But any kid can take a sled to a
>> snowy hill in a public park and have a grand time for an entire day
>> for free. And skiing is dangerous, very much so, deadly dangerous.
>
> Curiously, skiing is a major business in many area. Entire families go
>skiing. It is indeed fairly expensive to get set up for skiing, and if
>you are only doing it once or twice a season it is expensive on a per
>use basis. Single lift tickets are expensive, but season passes are
>quite affordable. I just checked the cost passes at the ski resort next
>to BiL`s chalet. You can get a night time season pass for $99, which
>works for me because I prefer night skiing. They have a 5x7 pass that
>offers 5 days and 7 evenings for $180. Youth and seniors anytime pass
>is $480.
>
>When my son was in high school he was in the ski club. The high school
>sent three busloads of students across the border to ELlicottville NY
>every Friday night. It was $185 for the bus ride and lift tickets and
>something like $10 per night extra for rentals.
>
>Skiing is great fun and great exercise. Sure people get hurt but I know
>lots of people who have been hurt just as bad sledding or toboganning.
>
>Cross Country skiing is great exercise and a lot less expensive. The
>equipment is a lot cheaper and facilities are easier to find locally,
>and most often are free.
>
>I used to cross country ski and thought downhill was out of my budget.
>I thought that is was a more rigorous workout. Then I tried downhill and
>found out how much work it is. I discovered muscles I never knew I had
>and there were times that I thought my thighs were going to explode.

What you've described is much too pricy for keeping kids active on a
regular basis, and you are quoting the lowest possible costs. I live
within a short drive of several ski resorts, the nearest only a half
hour. And skiing is very dependent on weather conditions... plenty of
people no longer purchase season passes because they are useless when
there's no snow... and ski resorts always exaggerate the sking
conditions to get folks to travel there only to find out it's all for
nought. Skiing to keep kids active is like suggesting scubba,
horseback riding, and mountain climbing, few can afford those
activities.

On 15/07/2011 1:10 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>>
>> I am 60. We had TV when I was a kid but we did not spend a lot of time
>> watching it. Admittedly, it was a small screen black and white, nothing
>> like the wide screen colour hi def that is available now. We had an
>> antennae that pulled in only 3 or 4 stations. We were not allowed to
>> watch much tv. My mother used to boot us out of the house to play. We
>> would head out on our bicycles and come back for meals, or pack a lunch.
>
> Streets were much safer then... I grew up on the streets of Brooklyn,
> back then a drive-by was the Good Humor man. There were no school
> buses, kindergartners walked to school ... mothers walked a kid to
> school the first week, that was it... kids grew up fast... today 40
> year olds are still living at home, and with no responsibilities.

I am not so sure that the streets were much safer back then. There was a
murder in my small town. We all knew that we had to be careful about
strangers. There were cases of sexual molestation. There were kids
killed and kids that went missing. It was part of life and people tried
to street proof their kids. Now they cloister them.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:33:16 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Goomba" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 14/07/2011 6:56 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just why do you think this is a plan? Some kids have medical
>>>>> problems that
>>>>> make them overweight. I used to feel sorry for my friend's
>>>>> younger brother.
>>>>> He was very active in sports and his mom had him on a very strict
>>>>> diet because he was overweight. He had a thyroid problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For every overweight kid with a thyroid problem there are dozens
>>>> who just eat too damned much and/or eat the wrong kind of food.
>>>> Their parents give them them soft drinks, chips, juice and
>>>> cookies. Then they sit around and watch television and play video
>>>> games. That's why they are fat.
>>>>
>>> if a kid's thyroid is really that deficient to be fat, they'd
>>> probably not be all that active in sports either. If you don't have
>>> the metabolic energy to burn calories, do you think you'd have any
>>> energy to play basketball?
>>> People use thyroid dysfunction as an excuse far too often. Once a
>>> person is on replacement med therapy, that excuse should be pretty
>>> well invalid.
>>
>> That's not necessarily true. I have had a thyroid problem you know.
>> Yes, it made me tired but I was still functioning.
>
> You don't qualify... you're not a kid, and you have other problems.

But I don't see why she would say kids with a thyroid problem can't do
sports. My daughter has a thyroid problem! She was dancing. Currently
sidelined with an injury. Making sweeping general statements like that is
just wrong.