Overweight And Over Here.

The question is 'what is the purpose of children being 'taken into care' and when should it be appropriate to take this route. I have no knowledge of the issues but guess that it is used when 1. when the physical or psychological well-being of the child is in serious danger and 2. when other avenues e.g. therapy and intervention by professionals have been exhausted. The problem is that what children are 'taken away' to is often just as terrible. Less than 5% of children leaving LA care go on to higher or further education. More than 50% of the girls will be single mothers within 2 years of leaving care and lots of other grim statistics. I don't entirely agree with the state funding boarding school places as an alternative to care (even though it is vastly cheaper) but an overhaul of care is certainly required. I agree that it seems a bit authoritarian in these cases to take kids into care but sadly, there are a lot of people out there with poor parenting skills. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

It's hard to imagine how fat a child woud have to become before it would be better off being taken away from its parents. I'm reminded of an article about one of those kids taken into care during the satanic abuse scares a couple of decades ago. In a missguided attempt to protect her it ruined her life, utterly. There is a sort of nasty puritanical moral hysteria about health issues growing these days (ironic, as we're doubtlessly the healthiest we have ever been). When it manifests itself as smoking bans then it's just mean spirited and annoying, if it's manifesting itself in the breaking up of families then something is very wrong.

They fuck you up your Mum and Dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had And add some extra, just for you. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"The problem is that what children are 'taken away' to is often just as terrible. Less than 5% of children leaving LA care go on to higher or further education." I don't think those stats really prove that being taken into care is just as terrible as being left in any given situation. I imagine a fairly low % of children from the socio-economics groups most likely to be taken into care go on to higher education anyway. And if they alternative is suffering ongoing domestic abuse or even ending up dead, then care is the least worst option. The authorities are always between a rock and a hard place. If social services are made aware of a child who's life-threateningly overweight and they don't intervene, and then the child dies, they're held responsible. I generally agree about healthy eating hysteria but there's a difference between kids liking a bit of junk food and being fat, and a situation where someone's weight is life-threatening in the relatively short term.

It is ridiculous taking children overweight children into care, because that is just going to traumatise them. The parents should be the ones penalised, with classes to show them what they can do, what they should do, and what might well happen if they leave their child to eat themself to death.

'It gives you nothing in the way of nutrients, at the very least will rot your teeth, and at its worst will cause diabetes. I blame capitalism for everything!' Reminds me of a very funny entry from a teenaged Adrian Mole's diary where his mother gives him a half hour lecture on why sugar is the cause of all evil in the world and is banning it from the house and smokes three cigarettes whilst informing him of her decision. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Shock therapy until it sinks in.

While you're waiting for it to sink in, the child develops problems with his joints, his internal organs, his breathing and his heart. I don't suppose social services just suddenly took it in to their heads to whisk the child away, they will have been monitoring this situation for months, arguably for far longer than they should have before taking action. LAs are usually very reluctant to take kids into care, at least partly because it's a very expensive option. Also because of episodes like the 'satanic abuse' one. This is very different though, because the bad effects on the child are measurable and indisputable. It's all a question of degree. No, no-one is going to take a child into care if it's a bit overweight, just as no-one is going to take a child into care simply because its parents smoke and drink. But if you drink so you are incapable of looking after your child, or if your child develops breathing difficulties because of the the atmosphere at home, and you refuse to acknowledge or address the problem, then yes, it may well happen. It's a judgement call. Leaving a child within a family may cause appalling damage, and removing a child from a loving but chaotic and generally inept family may be just as bad. Personally I'd rather social services erred on the side of caution. Although I do get a bit worried when I answer the phone at work and it's a Health Visitor wanting to make a child protection referral because of the state of the house. My own view has always been that the more germs children are exposed to, the more immunity they develop and the healthier they are. Just glad mine are beyond the Health Visitor stage now...

"While you're waiting for it to sink in, the child develops problems with his joints, his internal organs, his breathing and his heart. I don't suppose social services just suddenly took it in to their heads to whisk the child away, they will have been monitoring this situation for months, arguably for far longer than they should have before taking action. LAs are usually very reluctant to take kids into care, at least partly because it's a very expensive option. Also because of episodes like the 'satanic abuse' one. This is very different though, because the bad effects on the child are measurable and indisputable." This is just about exactly where I stand with the issue of food and children. It infuriates me to see grossly overweight children; IMO this amounts to a form of child abuse, although of course not on par with the more heinous sort. The parents, whether through ignorance, economics, lack of resources, or just because they're too fucking lazy to bother cooking the kid anything with fresh ingredients in it, are basically killing their kids, slowly, with a fork and spoon. The causes are complex; the cures are surprisingly simple, but we have to take into account that many of the humans on this earth who reproduce don't really want to take any individual responsibility for themselves, let alone their progeny. Blame it on 'allergies' to fruit/veg, or the government, or the fact that they don't have the money to buy decent food (although cigarettes are a popular inclusion in the budget, often, and they're rather expensive nowadays). This runs across every demographic, so I'm certainly not just having a go at the more socio-economically challenged. An example: a relative of mine, well-educated and solidly middle-class, works for one of the upper-crust schools in the area, etc. is overweight, smokes, and feeds her kids shit food. They've grown up hating most vegetables and many fruits. She knows better, but her own preferences for junk food (and some peculiar 'food issues', like, not liking the 'squirting' of tomatoes) outweigh the needs of her kids. Hacks me off, it does, because she *does* know better. If I could take the kids away and have them live with me, I would. Then again, if I could, I'd probably take in every overweight kid I see, so they could have a few good, healthy meals and get back that extra ten years of life they're losing through obesity. Not sure Mr. Archergirl would cotton to that. He has enough trouble with just the two he made. Styx, I'd adopt you, too, petal. Sorry, was I ranting just now?

You can have your jam doughnuts, but you have to eat your veggies first. x

Styx: "I blame capitalism for everything!" I'm surprised no one has jumped down your throat yet for this gross over-generalisation... I do, however, wholeheartedly agree! :) AG: "...many of the humans on this earth who reproduce don't really want to take any individual responsibility for themselves, let alone their progeny." ...& agreeance once more! "We" complain when "they" don't do enough and "we" complain when "they" do too much... anyone for anarchy? ;) pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

"anyone for anarchy? " No, but I *am* for parental licensing and enforced vasectomies/tubal ligations. Hell, *something's* gotta be done. ;-)

whilst temporarily sterilising people seems like a tempting idea, it is never going to happen because of the infringement on human rights and so on but it does seem ridiculous that you need a licence to own a dog and there are more regulations regarding fitness to keep animals than having children. All the other solutions (parenting classe etc) are a terrific burden on the tax payer and have laregely been ineffective so far. I find it particularly difficult to swallow since I would love to get pregnant tomorrow and with only 4 years of peak fertility left it remains a pertinent issue. BUT I am holding off until I feel emotionally and more importantly financially ready. I take bringing a child into the world very seriously. And whilst I am working like a mad thing to save up some money so that in 3 or 4 years time I can try for a baby, half my salary is being forcibly removed from me, partially to pay for these irresponsible bastards who breed like rats with no sense of duty towards themselves, society or the children they spawn. I am not suggetsing that having kids should be the right/ preserve of the rich only. there are plenty of families with very little income but give the kids lots of love and have a well rounded idea of parenthood (although I still struggle to understand why they would choose to have more than one or two if they are poor). What I protest at are the ones like that unemployed guy with over 10 kids with 3 women who costs the tax payer almost 3.4 million quid a year. But what's the solution? I can think of no easy ones since it isn't the kids' fault but then they see parents getting the housing/ free school dinners/ subsidized X, Y and Z and think its an easy and good way to live and go on to do exactly the same. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Again... anarchy? Isn't there something a little wrong with a society/"system" which, on the one hand, offers an increasing number of subsidies for X, Y and Z, and yet, on the other hand, takes them away with the increasing number of taxes on... erm... N, O and P? Don't much of the above just cancel each other out?... while creating numerous "admin costs," which then have to be paid for with taxes D, E and F... and so on and so forth...?? pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

Anyone for anarchy? Came the challenge. Well yes as it happens I am. The problems caused by social democracy in all its self-righteous pious do-gooding authoritarianism are far worse than anything that would be caused by thorough-going liberty. Now I do not intend to launch here a detailed study of anarchism but propose only to say that for the flowering of true liberty we must strive also for equality and solidarity. Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers. Anarchists have been described as unafraid jeffersonian democrats; ask yourself why, really why you are afraid of the freedom of other people.

"Whatever the question is you can be sure that social democracy and welfarism in particular, and the state in general are not the answers." No, I can't.

"What I protest at are the ones like that unemployed guy with over 10 kids with 3 women who costs the tax payer almost 3.4 million quid a year." Are you sure about this? 3.4 million pounds seems a lot of money. Do you think you could substantiate this? Cheers, Mark

no sorry I meant 3/4 million, I pressed the wrong key! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

... the individual in question is unemployed father of 15 (not 10 sorry) Mick Philpott and the costs were estimated (admittedly by a right wing paper) to include benefits claimed (£26,000 a year), cost of educating and providing other services to his brood and the 28K upgrade just done to his (surprise surprise) council house . Even if it isn't quite 750k in total it is still sickening. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Even if it isn't quite 750k in total it is still sickening. Hoorah for fans of the protestant work ethic. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

I think it's a very, very long way from £750k by my calculations. Even if you get £26K per year in benefits per child, which I don't think you do. Not really defending Mr Philpott but I don't think these rare, extreme cases tell us about the general picture. I don't object to people receiving some benefits from my taxes to help pay for the costs of raising three or four children. People who bring up children reasonably well, if imperfectly - as most parents from most backgrounds do - are performing a service to society. Not least because if I don't have children, their children will end up financing public services for me when I'm too old to so myself.

What's sickening about it? That we've got a system that doesn't make the division between deserving and undeserving poor? Things were much shitter when parish councils doled out money. I'm proud of the fact that we have a situation where there is at least an attempt to look at the needs of a person in a situation, rather than the morals of a person. If some people in that situation have a flawed understanding, or a different idea of what's going on there, fine. In fact, I think there should be more help for people, not less. And you know what, not everyone can have a lovely job that fulfils them, and not everyone can deal with changes in the labour market. And, like it or not, some people do feel that the world owes them a living. I'm still on the side of a universal welfare state. And I'm surprised at the self important whinging of the self-supposed 'respectable' who seem to want to throw baby and bathwater out. What is this 'disgust'? Is it just to do with the pocket or does it go deeper than that? Cheers, Mark

'I don't object to people receiving some benefits from my taxes to help pay for the costs of raising three or four children.' It only takes 5 families with no income and 4 kids to equal one Philpott so whilst he may be an extreme, there is a cumulative effect. I understand why you don't object to people receiving some benefits from my taxes to help pay for the costs of raising three or four children. However, I do object and so do lots of other people with good reason.

I note and see your reasoning Mark and I do try to understand this viewpoint but fail every time. I am definitely less anti-welfare than I used to be and have several very good friends who by my own definition are scroungers and have a certain insight into their situations. I was meditating on why I am the way I am recently and wonder whether I have some kind of underdeveloped morality compared to most of my friends. Maybe it boils down to the fact that I do not see human life in itself as always having the highest value. I see it as something value-neutral that then has either positive or negative values assigned to it. I wonder if there is something wrong with me because I find universal 'truths' that come naturally to almost everybody such as 'murder is wrong' difficult to grasp. I mean I understand morals and why murder is wrong but seem to lack the natural repugnance that most people feel about taking human life. And the 'disgust' is certainly deeper than the pocket. In fact the money is the least of the issues... I have enough. I do not know where it comes from but I am aware that it is to an extent wrong in that I should feel sickened by a person because they drop their 't's or participate in TV phone-ins or are even if they are lazy scroungers. But I just seem to be wired this way. I would say in my defence that I seem to loathe the principles more than the personalities. I think a 53 year old man who hasn't worked for 3 years, is fit and healthy but doesn't feel 'emotionally ready' to return to work should have his benefit stopped. But then this is the situation with my friend J and I can live with it because its J! I am open to change. Maybe some voluntary work or something would help... until then a big gate and a good tax accountant is my aspiration. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Hmmm. I fall somewhere in the middle of this debate. On the one hand, I am in full support of having a welfare state, because there will inevitably be people whose lives take a turn for the worse, who fall through the cracks somehow, and need some help getting back on their feet. When I was a student (the last time, that is), Mr. AG was also doing his MA, we had a small child and one on the way, and for a short time we took advantage of the state-provided benefits. However, as soon as we graduated, we stopped getting the benefits, and felt no compunction whatsoever to continue sucking up the state's funding. We were entirely capable of paying for ourselves. The trouble I have is with people who don't have this same ethic, because the fact of the matter is, it *does* put a burden on the rest of society to carry someone who is perfectly able to contribute but refuses to, oftentimes out of sheer laziness cloaked in other 'reasons' they are unable to work. (I am discounting here the people who have real MH issues, btw). I don't think that having, for example, back-to-work programmes is a wasted idea; but one of the problems is that the job programmes are often very limited in their scope for the types of jobs available. I, too, would not want to work if my only option was to work in a convenience store as a check-out clerk. Work is a very important facet of life, and if one gets no pleasure from the work, productivity inevitably suffers. But there is also something of the 'entitlement' attitude here, too, and this is a societal malaise: many people don't want to put the time/effort in for training if the results aren't instantaneous.

I do apolgise for the multiple posting earlier - I thought there was something wrong with my machine; I didn't even know that my post had come up once. And you can be sure that social democracy and the state are not the answers Buk.. The failure of social democracy is self-evident: it has neither slowed nor ameliorated the development of global capitalism to any great extent, let alone proposed a viable alternative. As for the state, it does today what it has always done: serves the interests of the privileged & powerful. The question is can the state solve the problem of obesity in children? The answer is no!

The state can't even fix the roads over here. archergirl has the further point on the original intention of welfare being temporary assistance until people get back on their feet. The welfare as a social safety net philosophy is identical in the U.S. as well. Unfortunately too many in the U.S. have no problem "sucking up the state's funding" so we have cross generational welfare families. Of course it's not the like you can go get a job in manufacturing in the U.S. and earn enough to raise a family (circa 1950-1980) as the manufacturing jobs have been sent to Communist China where they put lead in kids toys and poison in pet food. So, go work at Burger King for min wage, or stay on welfare and sell crack in the streets and make $1000 per day. The U.S. middle class has been collapsed and ghettoized in this way. I wouldn't jump down anyone's throat for blaming and/or hating capitalism but last time I checked the science was pretty much in on socialism killing incentive and failing miserably wherever it's been tried. The fix is somewhere in between the corporate scuz who send jobs to a regime they claim to hate (unions are also culpable in this) and wealth distribution by a bloated paternalistic State. Unfortunately, the moderate position does not satisfy the blind passionate angry ideologoies of the extreme left or right. Extreme public and social policies are bound to fuck up everything by definition, always have, always will. Tax and spend (the left) or borrow and spend (the right). Choose your poison...

In response to AGs comment ' would not want to work if my only option was to work in a convenience store as a check-out clerk.' and Mark's comment ' not everyone can have a lovely job that fulfils them' I would like to point out that somebody has to work in the service industry and in low skilled jobs. I worked for about 5 years when I was a student (and a bit beyond) washing up in a Cafe. Part time in term and full time in hols. I wouldn't exactly describe loading and unloading an industrial dishwasher for 8 hours a day lovely and fulfilling but I enjoyed daydreaming whilst I was doing it and mixing with the other staff and used to invent little washing-up systems and try and set myself records for going ultra fast! But most importantly I did it for the £3.60 (in 1992) rising to £4.50 (by 1997) per hour which paid for my booze, dope , CDs and clothes. If I didn't do it... no booze etc. which was motivating enough for me and thousands like me! The language of benefits was changed from 'unemployment benefit' to 'job-seekers allowance' to reflect that those claiming who can work should be looking and this can be enforced. I think the principles of the pay-outs aren't too bad but we need to be far, far harsher in enforcing it. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"The failure of social democracy is self-evident: it has neither slowed nor ameliorated the development of global capitalism to any great extent, let alone proposed a viable alternative." Social democracy isn't alternative to global capitalism, it's a way of making the effects of global capitalism less harsh and polarising than than they would otherwise be. It's not really sensible to judge a political approach on its failure to do something it isn't intended to do "As for the state, it does today what it has always done: serves the interests of the privileged & powerful." There's always going to be some cross-over between the most privelege and powerful people and the institution that exercises ultimate power. You're not telling us anything there. The question is whether there is an alternative which is better. Anarchism is all very well when you've got a state to be opposed to. When you actually try and deliver all the stuff that the state makes possible by anarchist means, things are likely to be more difficult. "Unfortunately, the moderate position does not satisfy the blind passionate angry ideologoies of the extreme left or right. Extreme public and social policies are bound to fuck up everything by definition, always have, always will." Well, the US doesn't have an extreme left in European terms. Centre-right politicians in France (including the new right-wing President Sarkozy) or Germany would be seen as communists if they ran on their economic policies in the US. That's not necessarily a criticism of the US but what's extremism depends very much on your own personal starting position. Lots of really nasty policies - slavery, public hangings, bans on private sexual acts between consenting adults - have been moderate and mainstream in their day, and still are in some countries.

I had an identical experience working (too) many low skilled service jobs at a minimum wage level as a student and a few years beyond but without a subsidy, which would have been nice because I could have gone out clubbing more. One couldn't raise a family on jobs like these though and they were similarly acknowledged as temporary and reserved for students and others (immigrants) transitioning into the larger economy because a fresh generation of students and immigrants were pushing up every 5 years or so. Until about 1980, there were 3 career path models in the U.S. - go to college (professional) learn a trade (skilled labor) or work in the manufacturing industry (unskilled labor). The vast majority (the middle class) worked in manufacturing, more by choice than anything else. You could do this and buy a house, a few cars, raise kids, and retire with a pension; the so-called American dream wasn't just a cheesy slogan, but a real economic model that worked in a natural and optimal way without tweaking by theorists. The tax burden was spread out more or less equitably, the shot and a beer group could put in their 8 hours and go home, there were just enough electicians and pumbers, and incentives were in place for those willing to work like maniacs 65 hours per week, take the risks, and build a business. With the manufacturing jobs going overseas, that vast majority is now parked in what used to be the formerly temporary jobs we worked as students where there is no living wage. In addition, the new generations of students and others pushing up every 5 years or so no longer have entry points into the economy. So, what do you get when you ice-out the vast majority from the economy? You get a skewed tax burden on professionals, plumbers, and electricians above a simmering underground economy watching all the bling on commercials with the attendant crime, anger, and resentments. Way to go, America!