Outrage!

Zoot Katz said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

Guess those millions and millions of car-less parents around the world
are incompetent to raise children.

Let's split up the list and start calling them immediately. Harrumph.

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IMO, it's a misguided policy.

Misguided and asinine as well. WTF does having car have to do with your
ability to be a loving parent???? Makes no sense to me.

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

IMO, it's a misguided policy.

Car-free foster parents could instill good and lasting values in
their foster kids. I doubt the kids would be denied any opportunities
by not being driven everywhere. Perhaps the kids would be stigmatised
because they couldn't brag, "my daddy's truck is bigger than your
daddy's". Whatever the "reasoning" behind it, it's [censored].

I won't even comment on married same-sex couples adopting kids as
that is generally acceptable here if one ignores the existing
bureaucratic gender bias.

Being a bicyclist is still regarded as being too radical, I guess.
--
zk

I can only assume this isn't in a big city. I know there are lots of people
in NYC who don't have cars OR driver's licences.

Zoot Katz said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

I hope they have it in writing and have forward copies to the various
media outlets.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Zoot Katz said:

I won't even comment on married same-sex couples adopting kids as
that is generally acceptable here if one ignores the existing
bureaucratic gender bias.

You aren't living in Texas then.

You can't even be gay and teach in Texas, let alone adopt/foster any
children.

You could probably claim to be 'car' free in Texas becuase everyone
would assume you only owned a pickup.

Laters,

Marz

may have said:

Zoot Katz said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

Guess those millions and millions of car-less parents around the world
are incompetent to raise children.

ITYM billion-plus, at the very least.

Quoted message said:

Let's split up the list and start calling them immediately. Harrumph.

Nonono. We need to report them to the UN for child endangerment.

At 35 minutes per call (a grossly overoptimistic estimate, it would
likely be more in the range of an hour and a half) with 1000 people
doing the reporting, the existing menace might be dealt with[1] in as
little as 1,117 years[2].

[1] "Dealt with" having its traditional US-culture meaning of "I've
reported it to the authorities, now I don't have to think about it
anymore because I've made it into Someone Else's Problem."

[2] Assuming 800000000 households with 2.1 endangered childen each
(requiring a separate report for each child, presumably).

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On 17 Dec 2006 10:20:27 -0800, "Marz" <[email hidden]> may

have said:

Zoot Katz said:

I won't even comment on married same-sex couples adopting kids as
that is generally acceptable here if one ignores the existing
bureaucratic gender bias.

You aren't living in Texas then.

You can't even be gay and teach in Texas, let alone adopt/foster any
children.

You also can't be straight and pagan and keep a job as a teacher in
most parts of Texas. (In much of the state, the phrase "as a teacher"
could be omitted with equal accuracy.)

Quoted message said:

You could probably claim to be 'car' free in Texas becuase everyone
would assume you only owned a pickup.

Ayup.

(I would note, though, that locally, there are several vehicles
nominally sold as "pickups" whose lack of a bed of a useful size will
cause snorts of derision. Most specifically, the Hummer H2 "pickup"
and the short-bed stepside Chevy S10 double-cab. The latter vehicle's
"bed" will not accomodate an ice chest large enough for a fishing
trip, let alone the rods.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:10:46 -0800, "Rudolf Schmidt"
<[email hidden]> may have said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMO, it's a misguided policy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Misguided and asinine as well. WTF does having car have to do with your
ability to be a loving parent???? Makes no sense to me.

Quoted message said:

This is an example of the US-driven cultural bias which creates the
misguided belief that in an emergency, a carless parent is powerless
to get the child to a place of safety or effective treatment, for one
thing.

I'd worry more about ability to maintain health insurance.

Matt O.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Matt O'Toole said:

Werehatrack said:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:10:46 -0800, "Rudolf Schmidt"
<[email hidden]> may have said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> IMO, it's a misguided policy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Misguided and asinine as well. WTF does having car have to do with your
ability to be a loving parent???? Makes no sense to me.

Quoted message said:

This is an example of the US-driven cultural bias which creates the
misguided belief that in an emergency, a carless parent is powerless
to get the child to a place of safety or effective treatment, for one
thing.

I'd worry more about ability to maintain health insurance.

Remember, Zoot's here in British Columbia, where health
insurance is socialized. In fact, I'd pretty much expect
the (gov't-run/overseen) child welfare agency would provide
coverage as part of the foster care deal.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Quoted message said:

Guess those millions and millions of car-less parents around the world
are incompetent to raise children.

If only there were enough big-hearted American celebrities to whisk
them away and give them all decent lives in bulletproofed SUVs!

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Gooserider said:

I can only assume this isn't in a big city. I know there are lots of people
in NYC who don't have cars OR driver's licences.

I get the impression that their apartments are full of dogs rather than
children, though :-)

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Gooserider said:

I can only assume this isn't in a big city. I know there are lots of people
in NYC who don't have cars OR driver's licences.

Vancouver, B.C., home of the "to owe ten" winter Olympics.

The city proper is ~650,000. The regional population is ~2.15
million, or half the population of the Province that is 364764 square
miles. . .which is about the same sized area as France, Germany and
the Netherlands combined.
--
zk

On 17 Dec 2006 08:44:07 -0800, "John Kane" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

I hope they have it in writing and have forward copies to the various
media outlets.

They were still pretty much in shock over it but I'll mention that to
them. They can probably get attention from the alternative media. It
doesn't seem like an issue the mainstream would touch for fear of
losing advertising revenue. I guess if it got big enough the worst
thing that could happen is somebody would offer them a car.
--
zk

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:23:14 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

may have said:

Gooserider said:

I can only assume this isn't in a big city. I know there are lots of people
in NYC who don't have cars OR driver's licences.

Vancouver, B.C., home of the "to owe ten" winter Olympics.

The city proper is ~650,000. The regional population is ~2.15
million, or half the population of the Province that is 364764 square
miles. . .which is about the same sized area as France, Germany and
the Netherlands combined.

Canada provides one of the most stunning examples of how government
and liberal thinking can just run absolutely wild when the population
is too scattered and non-unified in attitudes to allow right-thinking
leaders to get their message across effectively to enough of the
people.

(Alternate message: Canada concentrates on quality of citizens
instead of quantity, with the result that they're harder to sell into
cultural servitude to the privileged class.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"John Kane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zoot Katz said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

I hope they have it in writing and have forward copies to the various
media outlets.

Agreed. Public scrutiny of an issue like this tends to work wonders here in
the States, especially if you can get a sympathetic editor to give it
attention.

brink

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 17 Dec 2006 08:44:07 -0800, "John Kane" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

I hope they have it in writing and have forward copies to the various
media outlets.

They were still pretty much in shock over it but I'll mention that to
them. They can probably get attention from the alternative media. It
doesn't seem like an issue the mainstream would touch for fear of
losing advertising revenue. I guess if it got big enough the worst
thing that could happen is somebody would offer them a car.

I think you're being a bit too conspiracy-minded. Maybe things are
different in Canada, but here in the US I see mainstream media reports on
auto recalls, SUV pollution issues, alternative transportation, etc. all the
time.

This kind of story may have more appeal to alt media because it does tend to
more of an alt media interest, but the angle I think it would strike a chord
with in the US is the "freedom" and "rights" angle... would require the
protagonists to be the equivalent of Ozzie and Harriet when it comes to
being perfect prospective parents, but it's certainly do-able...

brink

Matt O'Toole said:

Werehatrack said:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:10:46 -0800, "Rudolf Schmidt"
<[email hidden]> may have said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> IMO, it's a misguided policy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Misguided and asinine as well. WTF does having car have to do with your
ability to be a loving parent???? Makes no sense to me.

Quoted message said:

This is an example of the US-driven cultural bias which creates the
misguided belief that in an emergency, a carless parent is powerless
to get the child to a place of safety or effective treatment, for one
thing.

I'd worry more about ability to maintain health insurance.

Matt O.

But Zoot Katz is posting from Canada. Basic health care is in the
provinical insurance package. Essentially it is a moot point here.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Zoot Katz said:

On 17 Dec 2006 08:44:07 -0800, "John Kane" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

I hope they have it in writing and have forward copies to the various
media outlets.

They were still pretty much in shock over it but I'll mention that to
them. They can probably get attention from the alternative media. It
doesn't seem like an issue the mainstream would touch for fear of
losing advertising revenue. I guess if it got big enough the worst
thing that could happen is somebody would offer them a car.
--
zk

Lose revenue? The BC set-up must be quite different than our
Children's Aid Societies set-up. However I doubt it would be a big
eough deal to bother the gov't. Really, it would have to be a very
dull day in Lotusland before something this minor was noticed. I mean,
it had nothing to do with a premier being arrested or so on.

On the other hand we have just had a devestating audit of our CASs
http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en06/302en06.pdf and it may be a
hot enough topic that it might resonate in BC and allow some eager
beaver young reporter to write an article or two. The quotes below
have nothing to do with the issue but might be a handy hook to say "Oh
Ontario is having all these problems : I wonder if this arbitrary carp
here in BC means there is ....

A couple of fun quotes :
"Senior management staff received high-end luxury vehicles, including
two SUVs worth $53,000 and $59,000. The cost of these vehicles was
significantly higher than, for example, the maximum allowance of
$30,000 set by the Province of Ontario for Deputy Ministers'
vehicles."

"The Society paid on behalf of a senior execu­tive for an annual gym
membership worth $2,000, along with quarterly personal trainer fees of
$650. Neither expense was recorded as a taxable benefit to the
employee."

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Zoot Katz said:

On 17 Dec 2006 08:44:07 -0800, "John Kane" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A car-free couple of friends were turned down by a provincial
government's child welfare agency They'd applied to be foster
parents. They were told they're not qualified to care for kids in
their foster home setting because they don't own a car or hold
drivers licenses. Everything else checked out fine.

I hope they have it in writing and have forward copies to the various
media outlets.

They were still pretty much in shock over it but I'll mention that to
them. They can probably get attention from the alternative media. It
doesn't seem like an issue the mainstream would touch for fear of
losing advertising revenue. I guess if it got big enough the worst
thing that could happen is somebody would offer them a car.
--
zk

I forgot. Have they consulted a lawyer on this? The child welfare
agency 'should' have published guidelines that are used in determining
suitablity. I may well be wrong but I doubt that 'owns car' is in
there. It might be interesting to see what a letter from a lawyer
asking for a clear rationale on 'cars ' might do.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada