Which Is More Important?

Two stories, actually, three but the third is a different post, have
me DEEPLY troubled.

The first, not because of order of importance, is this story about an
over weight boy being removed from his home and placed in foster care
for the "safety" of the kid. http://bit.ly/vrTck9


Authorities in Ohio, last week, determined that an overweight
(unnamed) 8-year-old boy was too fat, so they took him away from his
parents in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Officials told the parents that
they were not controlling his weight well enough.

The boy was reportedly over 200 pounds, well into the severely obese
category, according to Cleveland Plain Dealer. That extra weight puts
people at risk for diabetes, hypertension and other weight-related
disorders, doctors say.

The state’s Department of Children and Family Services insisted that
the third grader was being neglected, and that his mother was not
following doctors’ orders to control his weight.

The family’s lawyer disagrees, claiming that the state is overstepped
its role in taking the boy, and that his health risk factors do not
pose an imminent threat.


For an 8 year old boy, 200 pounds is in a dangerous zone. And from
what I hear on the radio, now, the government worked with the mother
for a year to do something about the boy's weight. My general concern
is, what is considered to be "too fat" and, given how government
starts at something "reasonable" and then quickly goes into the
unreasonable area, doesn't this set a dangerous precedent?

Suppose a child doesn't have access to the Internet at home? Will the
government then take kids from their parents because someone deems the
Internet to be "essential" to "healthy living"?

The second is something that is at least as frightening. Senate bill,
S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act, drafted by Sens. Carl
Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that would allow the arrest,
detainment, and lack of a trial, for a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, if
they are suspected of having "a relationship" with a
terrorist organization.

A U.S. citizen, being stripped of trial rights? And, as equally
important, the military being given authority to perform military
actions on U.S. soil without emergency action by Congress and the
President?

Hello?

Comments

[Cobb]

#1 is more frightening, because it indicts the public in a manner which essentially criminalizes already existing behavior. if 20% of american kids are obese then, those parents are already 'breaking the law', they just haven't been duly processed.

#2 is more draconian and deep strike at civil liberties, but the scope of people would be far narrower. nevertheless.. what troubles me about it is the extent to which it was considered legislatively necessary given prohibitions already in place during the anti-apartheid days - when american citizens couldn't donate money to outlawed political parties.

[DarkStar]

Re #1, good point. I was thinking of the ever changing definition of "fat" based on the changing BMI standards. But, #1 is at the local level, not at the federal level.

Re #2, I live in an area with a relatively high number of "Middle East" Asians, and I think it would be very easy for non-terrorist citizens to be caught in the "terrorist association" net based on attending or taking part in simple cultural events, which are quite common. Additionally, removing the barrier for having the U.S. military perform military action, on U.S. soil, without Marshall law, is totalitarian, not draconian.