The "State" does not take power from us. We give it to them.
An article by Sue Manning (AP) in the SG April 15, 2014 entitled "Calmer, potty-trained old dogs find new homes" quotes Erin O'Sullivan: "I think more than food or water, companionship is lifeblood to a dog.", that when an older dog is adopted, they will live longer because of an owner's love. In the same edition of the SG on the front page is a piece by Elizabeth Regan titled, "Adoption a bittersweet solution".
Ms Regan's article discloses that government officials with regular home inspections make determinations whether a child is better off in his own home or a home determined by the "state". That was true 60 years ago when my sister and brother and I were placed in an orphanage. It is true today. That is "government" home inspections: And always the fear that we would be taken away. Since few adoptions or foster homes include siblings, adoptions not only split children from parents, but from each other. As a one time sociology major I learned, with few exceptions and despite the many failings of some parents, children do better in their own home and not in temporary ones determined by the "State".
Where are we? We know that: "Old Dogs" live longer because of an owner's love." We know that elderly parents, much as dogs, are happier and live longer at home in familiar surroundings.
Yet: It is the "State" in its "educated" judgment that dictates that sanitized cages for pets or sanitized cages as in Nursing Homes for parents are preferable to real homes.
What particularly bothers me is that many of the far right persuasion also favor state decisions that rip families apart, contrary to the beliefs espoused, that, as much as possible, the government should stay out of our lives. Worse: Is that we rationalize selfishly that caring for those we love the most is too much, for which we then "reluctantly" pass our responsibility to the State.
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom