Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.

At what point do we say, "No kids for you!"?

December 5, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

Reading this story in the Everett Herald about the death of a 19 month old girl abandoned (with her sibling) in a car due to a neglectful mom who "had a history of neglectful treatment. Four other children were removed from her care in the past, according to the state records" I found myself wondering at what point do we (and/or tribal governments), decide that an individual should NEVER be allowed to have kids. Is 4 chances not enough? These children were left alone for days, covered in feces, lice, and filth--alone--to rot like garbage left in a can.

I hope one of the debates opened in the aftermath of this is at what point can a history of an individual allow the state to pre-determine they are unfit to be a parent.

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (50)


  • Add A Comment

  • Forrest wrote...
    In order for the mother to collect welfare from the state...
    December 5, 2012 1:31 pm
    She should be forced to be on Norplant and have to name the father. If the father refuses to pay child support, he should have a forced vasectomy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BikeNazi wrote...
    Oh I don't know
    December 5, 2012 1:37 pm
    Maybe fund Planned Parenthood and other women's health services better? Sometimes a handful of free condoms or a cheap abortion are what's needed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    OKAY, David. I'll say it
    December 5, 2012 1:57 pm
    No kids for YOU.

    At least until you stop postings about snakes eating goats.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Government assistance should have strings attached.
    December 5, 2012 3:06 pm
    If you are taking money from someone else to survive you are essentially a child. Children need rules and should want to step out on their own and take care of themselves so they can live how they wish. Unfortunately we have made poverty comfortable. Obama removed the work requirement for welfare and food stamps. Heck, these days they advertise to get people ON food stamps. You don't have the shame of forking over paper stamps any more. You get a convenient debit card and you can buy whatever you want. If you get cash benefits you can use your to buy anything you want. It's like you're pretending to be an adult without the responsibility. And they are building really nice housing areas for these people. Look at the Salishan development on Portland Ave in Tacoma. Those homes are better than a lot of places that I paid to live in. There is no incentive to find work and be your own person. Why? You are fed well, you have a cell phone, a TV, a car, a decent place to live? You're essentially living in your taxpayers' basement hollering for meatloaf. And we keep bringing it to you. sigh.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Snout
    December 5, 2012 5:35 pm

    lol, that was pretty good. I agree with you. I think that there should be a cap on benefits similar to unemployment. 24 months and an additional 12 months only to be used in an emergency and you have to basically re apply in order to get the emergency extension and then you are DONE, no more benefits. You can re apply only after obtaining gainful employment and paying back into the system for 2 year.

    You can keep your housing for 12 months after employment to make sure you have enough saved to go out on your own, you get half of your food stamps for six months after employment and then the cord gets cut.

    I remember as a kid moving to California from Louisiana in the early 70's and my parents being on welfare for 6 months, my parents hated it and back then you were stigmatized if you were on public assistance and my father couldn't wait to remove our family from the public dole and feel like a man again.

    We have gone from being stigmatized to a way of life and that is just wrong.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    sportsguru
    December 6, 2012 2:50 pm
    Fine ,sounds good on paper now what happens to the children of these folks,what happens to the unemployable?Do we let them starve in the cold ?I wish we could implement a plan like you suggested but I don't see how.I was recently in Cambodia and Vietnam and everybody worked or starved I saw no soup kitchens,no charity,but I also saw no people living like our homeless people in the cities.However it carried over to the children who also sold things like gum instead of being in school.The interesting thing about Vietnam is that its Communist but I saw no handouts
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Minor corrrection, Snout
    December 6, 2012 7:47 am
    You wrote: Obama removed the work requirement for welfare and food stamps.

    I know that's the way the RW talk shows like to spin it, but in reality Obama removed the *federal* work requirement *only in cases where the states* had equally strict or stricter requirements.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    CG
    December 6, 2012 8:55 am
    Thats an ongoing problem with are Righty friends,they read the Headline but not the story
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Ah to be a conservative for just one day. I wonder
    December 5, 2012 10:02 pm
    what it feels like to use the tragic death of a toddler to promote negative stereotypes of low-income women as dependent, irresponsible, prone to addictions and inadequate mothers? Just to make sure I have it straight, middle and upper class women should have children and stay at home to raise them, but single, low income women should limit their childbearing and should work outside their home to support their children.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    @ gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    December 6, 2012 5:21 am
    I'm as progressive as they come but I don't believe you should have children before you can support them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    There is a difference between believing you shouldn't have
    December 6, 2012 5:29 am
    children before you can support them and sterilizing poor women so that they can't. It's fascist and disproportionately affects the lower class. The right believes in a fantasy world that doesn't involve a lower income class (janitors, housekeepers, gardeners). For anybody to suggest they shouldn't have children is backwards and has already been tried. Eugenics is part of an ugly past that is best left forgotten.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    December 6, 2012 6:49 am
    There is a difference between believing you shouldn't have children before you can support them and sterilizing poor women so that they can't. It's fascist and disproportionately affects the lower class.

    It's ironic then, that you would want to promote an organization established to sterilize poor and black women and was the model for the nazi eugenics philosophy.

    “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    I don't support the Democratic party of the 1930s
    December 6, 2012 7:35 am
    anymore than I support the Whig Part of the 1830s. Nice try. But I agree with you on American eugenics being the model for the Nazis. It was a shameful time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    gaymarried
    December 6, 2012 8:18 am
    Hey the USA is also the model for many other types of behavior.We did medical experiments on poor folks in the South,we locked up Japanese Americans and stole their property,we dropped a 2 Nukes on Japan ,we started the Arm race that exists to this day and forces country's to spend more for Guns and bullets then on the needy of their nations.We wrote a Constitution that actually valued a Black man less then a White man.We lead the world in bringing war to other nations,So don't cut the USA short
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Now now...
    December 6, 2012 10:23 am
    We are a young country. Just imagine the evil that has been done by others in their existence. What has been done cannot be undone, lets work towards the future. But I do understand your frustration. :)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Forrest
    December 6, 2012 8:12 am
    I don't believe you should legally be able to operate a vehicle until age 21,I don't believe you should be able to consume alcohol until age 30,I believe grading on the curve should be outlawed,I believe gun laws should be tightened,I believe that health care is a RIGHT and should be available for a low cost for ALL.I believe that before every session of Congress each party should be required to tell a JOKE about the Tea Party,I believe every GOP Senator and Congressman should be required to Join a Union,I believe the Sec of Labor should be appointed from the Working Class of America and have NO ties with the corporate world.Now reality is setting in and I doubt if my beliefs will ever become the Law of the Land and neither will your belief that someone has the right to limit the amount of children a women can have.FAce it for many having lots of kids is their retirement program.So perhaps Guaranteeing everyone can have a decent life when they retire is a way of limiting the kids they have.What is your idea for obtaining a lower birth rate for poor folks?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    M101
    December 7, 2012 8:05 pm
    What is is that scares you so much about the Tea Party ? Why do you hate the idea of American citizens demanding their government and elected representative be accountable with our tax dollars? Please, I really have to understand why you think that is so evil?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Fish
    December 10, 2012 11:07 am
    The Tea Party to me seems like a well organised low information group of voters who believe they are a "Grass Roots" organization but are being used by people like the Koch Brothers to increase the influence they have with the GOP.The politicians who they elect seem to be obstructionists who bring government to a halt because of their lack of ability to compromise with the majority.Don't get me wrong I admire folks that are as dedicated as the Tea Party members ,my wish is that they would actually EDUCATE themselves on the issues and come on over to the LEFT where we are better suited to provide for what they need to make their lives better instead of guys like Dick Armey,and the Koch boys
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Substatute "FIrearms" for "Children"
    December 6, 2012 7:40 am
    ...and you will all of a sudden see the right wing screaming about their constitutional rights and how you cannot do anything.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    First
    December 6, 2012 7:51 am
    Lets figure out how to keep GUNs out off the hands of IDIOTs.Lets start with limiting the number of guns ANY one can own and Ban certain types of guns. No reason why folks should have access to a 50 cal sniper rifle that can kill from over a mile away and even bring down a airliner. Rightys this is going to happen so you can be part of the solution or others will DICTATE to you the terms of your gun ownership
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    "and even bring down a airliner."
    December 6, 2012 10:58 am
    You've been watching too many movies.

    Just how many killings are happening with 50 caliber rifles anyway? Compare that to something like say Corvettes.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Drool
    December 6, 2012 11:28 am
    Google Barrett M82,The question isn't how many killings are happening with .50 cal Rifles ,the question is why should any person need to have one.If you have a killing range of 1+ miles it makes events like assassinations so much easier to accomplish. Now the Secret service needs much more resources to protect the President or any person that could be a target.Some anti aircraft weapons are .50 cal
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Messiah
    December 7, 2012 10:10 am
    I am well familiar with the Barrett M82. You should learn the history of 50 caliber long range rifles like the Barrett. It did not originate in the military. It was thought up by tinkerers as a hobby. They got old M2 machine gun barrels put a home made action behind them and made a long range target rifle out of them. The Barrett was a civilian rifle before the military adopted it.

    You should also be aware of how big a Barrett is. It is hardly easily concealable at around 30 lbs along with its size.

    BTW, the 50 caliber aint aircraft guns are fully automatic (or in the case of the M2, selective fire). There is a reason for that. An airplane (even a big one) is hard to hit and it takes a number or rounds (unless you get a very lucky shot off) to do enough damage to bring down a plane. A 50 caliber round to a commercial airliner engine (if you could hit it...at low speed you are trying to hit something doing 200 MPH) would cause the plane to turn back and land if it damaged it....nothing else. Large transports (airliners) are so big that MANPADS are not terribly effective on them.

    BTW, a heavy caliber big game gun has pretty incredible effective range....like almost 3/4 of a mile for a 300 Win Mag. You need to get past the hysterical rhetoric you are being fed...it's as bad as Glenn Beck BS.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Drool
    December 7, 2012 11:22 am
    As I stated 50cals have been used as anti aircraft weapons.Ever given a thought that even though these 50s are single shot that you could have more then one shooter?Or even modify to shoot semi or full automatic. Buy your way of subject I was getting too which is why should ANYONE be allowed to buy a gun of this type?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Messiah
    December 7, 2012 3:43 pm
    Correciton: The .50 cal BMG round is used in anti aircraft guns. The Barrett is not. Guess what? the .303 and 30.06 were used in aircraft gunnery. BFD.

    Why should anyone have one? I don't know, why should anyone own a 198 MPH car which a co-worker of mine has. Because you want one. Like I said. How many people have been killed by civilian owned 50 cal BMG rifles. Fertilizer, black powder, and automobiles have been demonstrated to be more lethal in civilian hands.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    An Illustration
    December 7, 2012 10:15 am
    http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server2900/abdb4/products/618/images/15205/sako-85-bavarian_-set-trigger-o__42504.1349119574.1280.1280.jpg

    Right off the bat you can see why the anti gun crowd doesn't use this "sniper rifle" as an example of evil firearms to be banned. It is because it isn't black, doesn't have a pistol grip, and frankly looks like the rifle in Grandpa's gun cabinet. Yeah, and that's a 3/4 mile gun.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • clevesside wrote...
    When it's all about you, as proven daily.........
    December 9, 2012 10:41 am
    ....under any circumstances, why let kids get in the way? It would take an epiphany to change this thinking, but it seldom occurs. There are good and bad parents, often for the wrong reasons. Consider it, well, an abstract concept today.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    If
    December 10, 2012 4:23 pm
    our Righty friends took the time to check they would find that the BULK of welfare $$$ is for the children.So if you cut welfare $1 the children receive about .66 cents less
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }