From what I can gather a dysfunctional family is one that includes any or all of the following:
- Unemployed parent/s
- Unemployed children (assuming they are old enough to be sent down a coal mine)
- Pregrant teenagers
- Wife beating boyfriend/husband
- Alcoholic family members of all ages
- Drug addicted parent/s
- Single mum
- A multitude of children born to a multitude of absent fathers
- Family members who have "issues with the justice system"
- Uneducated, illiterate slags
- People who can't eat proper
- People who cant spell proper
- and so on and so forth
In short, you have crack smoking, beer swilling sluts who slothed through school without picking up any education; and who have then spent the following decade or two opening their legs to all and sundry, followed by the squeezing out of a fresh generation of useless, thieving toe rags. They are now well into their 3rd generation of breeding malignant, ugly, slatternly welfare cheating criminals.
But I ask these questions:
- Why do we allow drug addicts to keep their children?
- Why do we allow alcoholics to keep their children?
- Why do we pay child support welfare payments to parents who can't keep their kids at school?
- And I could go on all night.
Essentially, I don't understand why we allow these dysfunctional families to continue to operate.
What's wrong with saying, "You are a fucking useless thieving junkie with three kids - now you have none. We've put them in a home, run by the state. If you are still alive when they are 18, and they can be bothered to see you, you can see them then. Bye."
There can only be one answer.
The state is even more useless at raising children than a criminal with no morals, no values and a daily need to inject heroin several times. The state is worse at raising children than a drunken, unemployed, wife-beating step-father. The state is worse at raising children than a mother who is drunk 18 hours a day, and brings home a different bloke to root in front of her kids 3 nights a week. The state is worse at raising kids than a lazy set of parents who feed their kids nothing buy junk food, can't be bothered to clean the house and take out the rubbish, and who loll in front of the TV all day eating pizza. The state is worst at raising children than parents who can't be bothered disciplining and guiding their kids and instilling a few morals and values.
If the state is really that bad, why on earth do we entrust it with running our education system and our health system? In the US context, this is the same state that Obama wants to hand the health system to.
You have two choices here. You can decide that the state is actually reasonably good at running things, and thus should snatch away thousands of kids (and cut off a few sets of balls at the same time) and raise them in a better environment; or you can decided that the state is utterly fucked and it should retreat from a whole host of activities that it is simply making a balls up of at present.
I've worked for the state, and seen first hand what a useless, wasteful pile of crap it can be. However, as bad as I think it can be, I really don't believe it can be any worse than leaving kids with utter wastoids. If children really are our future, and all that crap, then surely the least the state can do is give those at the very bottom a better chance than they have now.
Poor choice isn't it. Crack whores or state care. The jury could be out on that one for a while.
Post a Comment