I especially liked this portion of their mission:

"stopping building on any open space where children play"

Hey, I got some sympathy for these hippy dippy peaceniks, the open-space and rec centers notwithstanding. You think relentless commercials and rigorous standardized tests make kids' lives better? Granted, I could kick the asses of every one of this group's kids, but still...

a) I think "relentless" commercials are fighting a rear-guard action in a doomed battle against console games and youtube. The kids I deal with don't notice ANYthing that isn't wrapped around an animé spell-wielding-rebel-ninja-messiah.
b) Teaching to tests that determine school funding is counter productive. Using standardized tests as metric tools for student progress and teacher efficiency is productive.
c) As would any well-crafted cause, creed or religion, The Children's Society's study asserts their socialist paradigm as a cure for society's ills. Do we want to invest time and data-space in the circular arguments which orbit that particular intellectual sphere?

Is it antemeridian surliness or precaffinated ire that you will pretend excuses your tone, garmr?

So, first of all, hearing about the blessings of self-determination by someone with a Lordship is a little much. So is hearing about how much harder life is for children now from the country that brought us "Please sir, may I have some more?"

Second, rigorous standardized tests paid my way through college, so yes, they can be helpful. Not necessarily good public policy, but then, that's just my self-centeredness talking.

Third, your tolerance level for social welfare rhetoric is poor. I have a healthy immunity from my many years of exposure. Hence, I've learned that there is a chasm of Grand Canyon proportion between what social service organizations philosophize about, and what they actually do. Although broadly aligned in concept, the rhetoric is usually somewhere between Utopia and 1984, especially to the uninitiated. Actual work is usually quite a bit more practical - bodily functions are sometimes involved, not always in the proper locations.

With Garmr, the surlier the cuddlier.

I've decided if you ever want to insult something without actually digging into its essence, you say it's "socialist." By the way, I had a socialist day at work today.

On socialist: I must agree with your observation, Master Guapo; you can use the word as an insult, and in the post above I believe I did. If you remove that word from the sentence, my thought remains the same, so it is practically functioning as an profane expletive.
On "...somewhere between Utopia and 1984": didn't Huxley concisely define that somewhere as the Brave New World? Or was that Utopia and 1984?
On rhetoric tolerance: that explanation makes sense.
Similarly, I have a healthy immunity to religious rhetoric from my many years of exposure. Hence, I've learned that there is a chasm of Grand Canyon proportion between what theistic organizations philosophize about, and what they actually believe. Although broadly aligned in concept, the rhetoric is usually somewhere between Utopia and 1984, especially to the uninitiated. Actual faith is usually quite a bit more practical - bodily functions are sometimes involved, not always in the proper locations.
And finally: it may be time "to invest time and data-space in the circular arguments which orbit that particular intellectual sphere". Not in socialism, but in creedism and shouldmongering; I have some thoughts, born in the intellectual isolation named Texas, which need cohered, expressed and then tested.

Fire away.

You might compare their goals to Utopianism and say they're just as unattainable, or you may compare their "good for the majority" ethos as 1984ish (though that latter might be a stretch). But doesn't it fail to address their arguments? They seem to be neither as ambitious as utopians nor as generally nasty as Orwell's fascist tropes. In a way, you're giving them too much credit.

"You" me or "you" doubleoh?

I give them no credit. Their arguments are based on fundamental assumptions about both human development and the role of government with which I disagree. I don't forsee Utopia, 1984 or BNWorld (though a century of Brave New Britain is possible). I foresee three successive generations unable to support an international power, followed by cascading social disintegration.

My point was that it appears aside from the occasional commissioned study, the real efforts the Society supports involve getting individual children out of abusive and unsafe homes and finding poor and marginalized kids some help they probably really need on a practical level. If so, those are worthy goals.

If they are doing the right things for the wrong reasons, that doesn't necessarily bother me - I'm not too afraid of enactment of their larger agenda. But I do give credit to people who are trying to find solutions to real problems and alleviate some preventable human suffering. I believe that is attainable at a personal level, which is the one that really matters. But since people don't neatly just get "fixed", I think the fallible nature of the personal work draws people to find some greater purpose to motivate themselves and give some hope of winning the "war on _____". As garmr suggested, one might draw the same conclusion about religious philosophy.

In terms of its effects, I consider the philosophy to be political posturing, not unlike "our cities will flood if we don't all stop driving right now" and "a wasteful stimulus package is selling our childrens' futures" and "the end is nigh". They are staking an extreme position to try to get the mainstream to even notice, let alone move an inch.

Back to garmr's original point, I think, if they ever were to succeed in their broadest declared agenda, the resulting sheeple and vealdren would eventually be rampaged by the new Lakota, Huns, Goths, Mongols, etc., that often bring the creative destruction of untenable world views.

I'm pretty much with doubleoh on this. I don't prescribe to any notions that children can or should be made completely safe or all alike and certainly not all happy, but specific goals of places to play outdoors, places to play indoors, access to decent education, decent nutrition, removal from abusive situations can all benefit people on the individual level.
Are there too many vealdren out there? Definitely. Will more places to play make more of them? I don't think so.

I'm surprised that nobody has argued the point that I found scariest in this: economic opportunity for women = highest divorce rate in Europe = bad thing for children. I think it is reasonably non-PC to suggest that divorce is bad for children, and bold to directly equate women's earnings with divorce rate. But making the flat out suggestion that economic opportunities for women are the cause of unhappy childhood is not going to make many fans from working women.

Geez, give a woman an education and she starts developing "opinions."

Honestly, I didn't really even notice the outdoor section; it didn't occur to me what childhood would be like without dense woods, deer grazing in the front yard and wild turkeys running around under the clothesline.

The idea that galled me enough to post was the reduced "competition in education" portion.

Hellx: I had "opinions" long before I had an "education"-- part of the reason I got an education was so that people might sometimes listen to my opinions.

Garmr: I'm assuming you're mocking the pastoral ideal of childhood, but it occurs to me that I think you grew up where wild turkeys are certainly a reality, so I can't be sure.

No mockery intended; that was my childhood.

Garmr: Your childhood sounds like Haven on Earth.

Beautiful, Flick!

Plantnerd: how can a man to actually listen to your opinions when he's staring at your tits?

(I hope my roleplaying an Internet cro-magnon male does not truly offend. Since the women in my family have an MD and a PhD while the men merely hsve master's degrees, it's fun to denigrate the educational achievements of women on occasion.)

I'm available if anybody wants to objectify me.

Garmr- I'm a big advocate of two related movements in the US-- "no child left indoors" and "the outside hour" (make sure that your kid can go outside every day and play/explore/wander-- soccer practice does not count). I have a feeling you'd think that "nature deficiency disorder" is utopian nonsense, except that its a very real problem (and creating more vealdrens).

Hellx- I just gave an exam and obvious nobody is listening to my opinions (or, more importantly, the factual information and processes that I present). I'll blame it on my tits. They are bigger these days and perhaps, even under blazers and baggy sweaters, too much of a distraction.

even under blazers and baggy sweaters, too much of a distraction.

There is a way to test this, you know? Reveal more and see if it is less of a distraction.

It would be an interesting study to see if today's young minds have become desensitized by sexual imagery in tv shows, music videos and advertisements...or if there is some bit of imagination left in their gray matter--along the lines of off-stage violence in Greek tragedy seeming much more intense because you didn't see the act and you were left to imagine the worst.

I suppose your students would fall into one of two categories: Ron White or Not Wanting to be Disappointed.

Ron White - Once you've seen one set of breasts, you want to see the rest of 'em.

Not Wanting to be Disappointed - Every covered breast is a perfect breast. Once uncovered, the breast cannot exceed the expectations. It could either live up to the expectation of being perfect (which is a low percentage), or it could disappoint.

I almost got into a discussion similar to this one day in 11th-grade Algebra. I sat in front of a dating couple. The boyfriend was upset that the girlfriend was dressing too suggestively. I almost chimed in with my two cents, but I thought better of it because 11th-grade Algebra is not the appropriate time or place to discuss Greek tragedy.

"I have a feeling you'd think that "nature deficiency disorder" is utopian nonsense, except that its a very real problem (and creating more vealdrens)."

No, I don't feel that it's nonsense, though I believe that calling it a "disorder" is manipulative.

Again, what I was ernestly expressing is that, with my rural background, I tend to make erronious assumptions about other people's exposure to the outdoors.

That said, I tend to group "movements" under the heading "creedism and shouldmongering", so I'm still confident we're not on the same page.

Flick- I like the idea, although to test all your points, I'd have to reveal enough that my students could see the flaws, if there were any. Wearing a low cut (for a science professor) blouse would still leave plenty to the imagination.

The confounding issue is that my belly is growing as my breasts are, which is a distraction of another sort.

I'm sure you're 11th grade algebra students wouldn't have minded a diversion into Greek tragedy.

They weren't MY students...I was one of the students. And I was trying my hardest to not be a geek. Bringing up Greek tragedy would have done irreparable damage to any coolness I thought I had.

The confounding issue is that my belly is growing as my breasts are, which is a distraction of another sort.

My belly is growing too, because the past two weeks have been relentless work-wise and no time for running. But you're talking about something different, I'm guessing. And Sparkling Squirrel confirms it. So -- congratulations!

(Maybe I knew, or should have known, but being self-involved is a handicap I don't wish on others.)

Is it Slug's?

Is it Slug's?

More importantly, does the bun in your oven have a Norlos name yet?

Everyone involved assumes that Alloicious Nukular or Ewaldina Mervivan Phogg is an alien monkey, but I don't think that negates it being sprog of slug.