Punishment for Criminal Thought

[mugaliens]

CNN carried an article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/27/student.essay.arrest.ap/index.html)this morning which I found far more disturbing than the content of the student's essay.

Essentially, the student's were given an essay to journal whatever poped into their minds. One student's essay contained some rather uneasy content, involving shootings and some other stuff.

Yet, after being questions, during which time the student said, "In creative writing, you're told to exaggerate," Lee said. "It was supposed to be just junk. ... There definitely is violent content, but they're taking it out of context and making it something it isn't," he was taken to another school and the school district was still evaluating punishment.

Why was he arrested? What law did he break? Why is the school district still evaluating punishment?

:doh:

Don't they have the slightest clue that such an approach would, if the student really is pathological, only breed further resentment which might lead to a response that's less imaginary than the contents of his assignment?

:wall:

Why not get him some help, instead? If anything, he should probably have a few sessions with a psychologist, preferrably paid for by the school system (since they're the only ones who're having coniptions about this).

But punishment? Again, for what?

:confused:

Are they simply grossly overreacting, both wrongly so, and in the wrong direction, because of what happened at Virginia Tech? So this is a CYA issue?

:rolleyes:

Please, and God help us, let's get off the narcissistic CYA avenue of response and start doing what's right.

In college I was forced to read one of the sickest books I've ever read, by an author named Jerzy Kozinsky (hopefully the spelling is somewhat close). In the book, the leading character is a young boy who is abandoned by his parents, is forced to watch incest, bestiality, is himself sexually abused, he's buried to his neck before being rescued, and all of this is described in pathetically graphic detail.

Well, guess what, folks? This filth was forced on me courtesy of the Virginia Tech English Department.

Ironic, huh?

But now we're arresting and punishing high school students for following assignment guidelines?

What's wrong with this picture?

:think:

I think the school administrators need to get a clue, and fast, before they do far greater damage by trying to CYA, blindly, mindlessly thrusting this student into the same category as the psychopath who rampaged my alma mater, rather than recognizing the problem (if there even is one) and responding appropriately with a tentative evaluation and dismissal if it's negative, or continued help if it's positive for certain traits harmful to society.

Hopefully, someone at this administration call pull their head * * * * and make a more salient decision along these lines.

:cool:

[Dr Nigel]

Based on the content of the article, I agree. It reminds me of a sci-fi story that actually did have thought police, where the leader's tagline was "Be pure, be vigilant, behave!".

If the student is actually charged, I rather suspect a decent lawyer would tear the prosecution to pieces. After all, all he did was write an essay, that only two or three people might ever see, except that the teacher seems to have felt it was his/her duty to disseminate it to a wider audience.

I ask myself: who has actually done anything wrong here? I certainly don't think it's the student.

[mugaliens]

Agreed, Dr. Nigel.

One has to ask what was behind the nature of his writings - such is the duty of the adult world with respect to our youth.

However, there are very clear responsibilities, including that of privacy, with respect to such disclosures, particularly with a minor, and those have apparently be grossly violated by the teacher and the adminstration. The mere fact that his name is plastered around the entire world is clear, bona-fide evidence that his rights to privacy have been violated, and I strongly suspect that the school system is in for a rather large payout should the student or his parents wish to sue.

What a ridiculously stupid administration.

[Matherly]

You are forgetting someing very important.

Thoughtcrime doubleplusungood.

Personally, I blame Goldstien.

(This sarcasm brought to you by Carl Matherly and George Orwell)

[speedfreek]

It reminds me of a sci-fi story that actually did have thought police, where the leader's tagline was "Be pure, be vigilant, behave!".

That sounds like Nemesis from the old 2000AD comics. :)

[Ronald Brak]

When I was a school kid we were taught that killing people was a good thing. I wish people would make up their minds.

[JohnD]

No one has mentioned Virginia Tech.
The student who killed there had written similar compositions, I beleive, and his teachers are being criticised for not shopping him.
With hysteria like that around, should you be surprosed if someone DOES shop another student with a lurid imagination?

Of more concern is the police officer who can twist thoughts into "disorderly conduct".

John

[Jens]

That's exactly what I was thinking. In fact, there were people on this board saying that people should have seen the signs, that Cho should have been forcibly hospitalized or detained in some way. So now they're doing it, I guess. But like others say, who guarantees they'll always get the right ones. People are not infallible, even psychiatrists.

[ASEI]

As far as dealing with psychos before they go crazy and kill people - after the Virginia tech shootings people demanded to know why he wasn't "dealt with" before he went on a rampage. They wanted to know why the psychologist couldn't stop him, restrain him, ect.

Now they want to know why a high-school student is being charged for disturbing writing.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Society can't, with 100% omniscient accuracy, determine who is going to go nuts. Society is going to err on one side or the other, and you have to choose how you're going to err. Perfect utopias where we infallibly detect and foil these people are not an option.

On the one side, where our nation is right now, we can't treat thought as incriminating and a basis for jailing people. Direct threats, yes. But disturbing rants recorded in private? Stopping people like the Virginia tech psycho entails surveying people for "warning signs" (ie eccentricity, strange thoughts) and using that as a basis to send out police and jail them.

On the other side, which is where we need to go to ensure these sorts of things don't happen, people who start getting hot under the collar, or display odd enough behavior, will be rounded up and confined by well-meaning people in white coats with gunmen as backup. Being weird would pose too great a risk to society. (Many of the great and benificial people in history were also a little odd - imagine what we would have lost if Maimann or Einstein or Edison were jailed) I imagine under this scenario, far more innocent people's lives will be ruined than a lone psycho can destroy.

[ASEI]

Sort of reminds me of one of David Brin's societies - they made the decision to ostracize and control an underclass of people who were determined, by genes, to have elevated tendencies to violence. Weren't allowed to have children, weren't allowed into space, weren't allowed to leave controlled areas because they might be violent. After all, mankind wants to put it's best face forward, and won't allow the wrong sort of people to propogate into space.

[Eckelston]

That's exactly what I was thinking. In fact, there were people on this board saying that people should have seen the signs, that Cho should have been forcibly hospitalized or detained in some way. So now they're doing it, I guess. But like others say, who guarantees they'll always get the right ones. People are not infallible, even psychiatrists.

Maybe the school made a mistake because of public hysteria but it was a mistake anyway. The teacher set a very bad example by asking honesty from a student than punishing him for it.

[HenrikOlsen]

A conviction could bring up to 30 days in jail and a maximum $1,500 fine.
For writing an essay in accordance with the teacher's instructions!

Several people need to get their heads examined.

[Fazor]

Well, can I play it safe and say both sides are wrong? No seriously! Okay let me explaine: I think the reaction of the teachers and now law enforcement was way out of line. If you recieve a work like this, it shouldn't just be ignored but there's a right and a wrong way to handle things. Letting something get blown to these proportions is a very very bad way to handle something like this.

On the flip side, what kind of a moron student do you have to be to write a paper like this and not expect a problem? I'm not saying he's a moron for writing the paper; if he was trying to show extreeme exageration or satire or whatever then good for him. That's what creative writing is. But at least go to the teacher and say, "look, I want to push this to it's furthest edges for [insert the artistic merit here]." And discuss what you're gonig to do before hand. I mean, use some common sense.

[mugaliens]

I agree, Fazor, that the student showed a serious lack of judgement, particularly in light of recent events. However, his ideas may have been born from those same recent events.

That the school administration and the police are grossly, even ridiculously out of line is a foregone conclusion.

[Jim]

"High school student" and "common sense" are oxymorons. Now, "high school teacher" and "common sense" should be companions. Maybe the teacher could have given a few groundrules? You know... no obscenities, no profanities, no express sex or violence... something "common sensical?"

IMO, the school admins overreacted... grossly so. Maybe the paper was an "indicator" or a "cry for help." But, it should be taken in context, and I don't think it was. What other indications were there that this student might be troubled? Had the teacher seen anything else that should trigger concern? Had anyone?

At most, this is a reason to speak with the student and understand why that subject was chosen. To even suggest punishment at this point is absurd.

The VT incident and this one demonstrate once again that people are generally very good at two things, hindsight and knee-jerk response.

[Dr Nigel]

That sounds like Nemesis from the old 2000AD comics. :)

Spot on. 2000AD is still going, by the way.

"Sleep is no refuge for impure thouights!"

[Dr Nigel]

Sort of reminds me of one of David Brin's societies - they made the decision to ostracize and control an underclass of people who were determined, by genes, to have elevated tendencies to violence. Weren't allowed to have children, weren't allowed into space, weren't allowed to leave controlled areas because they might be violent. After all, mankind wants to put it's best face forward, and won't allow the wrong sort of people to propogate into space.

This whole thread reminds me of the Megadeth song "Sweating Bullets (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/megadeth/sweating+bullets_20091363.html)", which includes the line:

"I'm in trouble for the things I haven't got to yet,"

[Dr Nigel]

... Maybe the teacher could have given a few groundrules? You know... no obscenities, no profanities, no express sex or violence... something "common sensical?"

In fact, Jim, the linked article in the OP states that the teacher told the students "... Don't censor yourselves,". It seems to me that the student took this instruction at face value.

Which kind of leads into the question of to what extent should students interpret the instructions of their high-school teachers.

[Doodler]

Curious to see what the ACLU will do if they have the backbone to do something meaningful.

[Gillianren]

Yeah, the teacher is behaving in a very contradictory manner here, I agree. "Do not censor yourself" and "but I'm going to have you arrested for your violent and disturbing essay" probably translates to "the quality of work turned in by future students will suffer." Also "I don't really mean don't censor yourself, but it sounds good." (It's Jerzy Kosinski, Mug, so you were quite close.)

Now, a session or two with a counselor of some kind mightn't be a bad thing. I'm not one of those who thought the VT shooter's writings should have necessarily been "warning signs." But often--not always, but often--such writings are a sign that the person writing them is going through a rough time or having some kind of emotional trouble. Then again, the editor of my high school's literary magazine my sophomore year wrote a lot of this sort of thing. (I know; it had been my job the year before to read through reams of his stuff to pick out a few items for publication.) He was quite well-adjusted, but he had a thing for Dean R. Koontz and Stephen King, and he tried (badly) to emulate their style.

[LurchGS]

Gillian,

(and others)

Exactly - these aren't *indicators*, they're a relatively common thread in those who DO drop off the deep end. The reverse is not true, though - most of those who write darkly don't drop off the cliff and start doing horrible things.

An indicator would be something that says "this individual is in need of help". Torturing animals, for instance, or setting fires. Threats constitute indicators, too.

I've not read the article, and I've certainly not seen the student's work in question. Does he name names and write about doing awful stuff to classmates? If so, I'd say that's a good indicator that he needs to spend time with a doctor. If it's arbitrary names etc., it's more likely to be meaningless.

In either event, the school system overreacted severely.

(Yes, I'm one of those freakoids who doesn't blame VT for not spotting Cho in advance. It's been amply demonstrated that you can't really predict these things. Yet. )

--------------

"Death to the unbelievers! Hay, how come nobody likes me?"

[AstralSpirit]

Yeah, the teacher says tell all and no punishment. The student criticizes the assignment in a very blunt way and is arrested. So much for the teacher standing by his word. :wall:

I don't know that counseling is necessary. From reading the article, it looks like the student was attempting to be critical of the assignment. He was saying that the teacher might insight another incident like Virginia Tech. While I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, it is a perfectly valid point of view and there should not be action taken for expressing it.

There was certainly anger in his essay that he may have expressed in an inappropriate manner. But how is he to learn if someone doesn't help him learn how to express such anger appropriately? The response should have been to help the student improve his writing style, not arrest and punish him.

[Sp1ke]

Since we aren't omniscient and the law isn't perfect, the choice is:
1) Do we risk letting guilty people go free?
or
2) Do we risk jailing innocent people?
The over-reaction here sounds like option 2 but I'm firmly in the option 1 camp.

[AstralSpirit]

Gillian,

(and others)

Exactly - these aren't *indicators*, they're a relatively common thread in those who DO drop off the deep end. The reverse is not true, though - most of those who write darkly don't drop off the cliff and start doing horrible things.

Some very great writers have written graphically about the most horrible of actions, their works are considered cultural treasures. Other writers such as Stephen King, have written very bloody stories that will never be considered great, but he has never been arrested for writing them.

[Pinemarten]

My predictions:

The kid will sue and make lots of money.
The lawyers will make more.
The kid will do the talk show circuit and make money.
The talk shows will make more.
Anything he writes will be published, and he will make money.
The publishers will make more.

[publius]

This was one of the things I was worried about with the breathless coverage of that VT lunatic's "disturbing writings".

In the VT case, that guy's writing was but a mere subpart of a wider "pattern of behavior", including setting a fire, stalking women, freaking students and teachers out to the point the students didn't want to be in class with him, and one teacher set up a "code word" to tell an assistant to call security.

Far different. Add all that up, and something ought to be done.

In this case, the arson and stalking are criminal, and that would trigger allowing the state to do something serious. But if we didn't have anything criminal, but still the other "pattern of disturbing" behavior, I still say something should be done.

But not criminal. A school should be allowed to kick someone out like that, no questions, and no lawsuits. You want an education, play by the rules of behavior we set. If you don't, go away. You're still free, but we have our freedom, too.

-Richard

[timb]

.... But if we didn't have anything criminal, but still the other "pattern of disturbing" behavior, I still say something should be done.

But not criminal. A school should be allowed to kick someone out like that, no questions, and no lawsuits. You want an education, play by the rules of behavior we set. If you don't, go away. You're still free, but we have our freedom, too.


What about a refund? if you get kicked out of college for being "disturbing" but not breaking any specific rules, shouldn't you get you tuition back?

[Maksutov]

If this holds up, it means that the writers for every cop show on TV need to be arrested.

Which might not be such a bad thing...

:think:

[astromark]

Quickly placing ambulance's at the bottom of every cliff does not lessen the mortality rate. Building a better fence at the top of that cliff and educating people of the dangers might be a better idea. I wildly violent or gruesome imagination can be a good thing. As long as the control function is activated.
Good education is not thought control. Good education is the school of life. Balance, reason and understanding is part of that. Leave this student alone to judge for himself what is right and wrong. Writing about blood curdling violence must not be considered a crime. I will give this some more thought, but do sagest that nothing is actually wrong here. Just a nervous teacher. A little gun shy. ( pun intended ) You must not blame him. He did the right thing, only letting the media in on it was a mistake. That is ironic because the media are often guilty of having a imagination running wild.

[ToSeek]

If this holds up, it means that the writers for every cop show on TV need to be arrested.

Which might not be such a bad thing...

:think:

There was some story recently about parties in the US government asking the producers of 24 to stop giving the terrorists ideas....

[mugaliens]

Since we aren't omniscient and the law isn't perfect, the choice is:
1) Do we risk letting guilty people go free?
or
2) Do we risk jailing innocent people?
The over-reaction here sounds like option 2 but I'm firmly in the option 1 camp.

I'd have to disagree, for one simple reason: writings and rantings like Cho's and the high school student's are a dime a dozen (perhaps a million a year, many of which appear as lyrics in certain music venues), while shootings like the one that occurred at VT are extremely rare, occurring once every few years.

So - since the odds that such writings are actually a premonition of violent behavior are several million to one, you're proposing that we sequestor (as a minimum) the several million (less one) people who'd never actually follow through on such writings with violence?

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=977337#post977337)
If this holds up, it means that the writers for every cop show on TV need to be arrested.

Which might not be such a bad thing...

:think:
There was some story recently about parties in the US government asking the producers of 24 to stop giving the terrorists ideas....What I wrote above had to do with creativity and originality, two qualities sorely lacking from most TV shows as well as new movies.

I'm so tired of cop dramas, shoot-em-ups, explosions, car chases, car crashes, car crashes in slow motion, lawyers, ER scenes, obvious CGI, blood splattering, gore, more car chases, everything in dark metallic blue, everything in dark brown/yellow, quick cuts to posturing post-adolescent "actors", guns and more guns, crashes, explosions where you can see the stunt actors jumping, more explosions, car wrecks, broken glass, flashing explosions, and an unceasing series of unnecessary remake after unnecessary remake after unnecessary remake.

Some movie tomes have already dubbed the coming season as the "Summer of Remakes". My only gripe there is that it should be called "The Summer of Reremakes" or "Son of The Summer of Remakes" or "The Summer of Remakes: Part 16".

I find what you mentioned about "parties in the US government" to be really disturbing.

[ASEI]

Son of the Summer of the Remakes LXXXVII: Wrath of the Sequel

[publius]

What about a refund? if you get kicked out of college for being "disturbing" but not breaking any specific rules, shouldn't you get you tuition back?

Well, that depends. The way I'd do it, is, when you sign up, you agree to the rules. If you break the rules, the school decides if you get your tuition back. And of course, that would go right in what is in effect the contract between the student and the school which a student agrees to when he enrolls.

This was something that surpised me. You (speaking about the US) by law have a right to an education up to high school, which means the taxpayers have to pay for everyone to get a high school education. Since it is a right, it's different for public schools -- they have to take everybody.

But I didn't think it was that way for colleges, since there is no legal right to a college education. However, there are all sorts of strings that come with public funding. Virginia had just recently passed a law preventing colleges from expelling students with mental illness. Sounded like a very feel good thing at the time, I'm sure. Not any more.

Anyway, I was surprised about that. The hook for most of this stuff where the state can dictate rules colleges must follow comes from acceptance of public money. A school that accepted no public funding would probably not be bound by this. However, some things go beyond that, discrimating on race, sex, and religion being a prime example there.

And then there are some other things. A while back there was a controversy where some univerisites, in PC fervor, tried to kick out the war-mongering ROTC and other military recruiting programs. Congress passed something that required schools that accepted public funds to allow the military programs.

There was court case about that which went to the Supreme Court. Not only did the court affirm Congress' power to do that, but it went further and said Congress' power to raise armies and navies went so far as to give them the power to force a college to accept military recruiting whether they accepted public funds or not.

The decision was merely that Congress had the power if it chose to exercise it. I don't think they've yet gone that far with the law -- it's still the public funding only.

-Richard

[Gillianren]

Virginia had just recently passed a law preventing colleges from expelling students with mental illness. Sounded like a very feel good thing at the time, I'm sure. Not any more.

Yeah, because those millions of functional mentally ill people are always shooting up schools. Except oh, wait.

And mugaliens, you and Sp1ke are on the same side. You read his post wrong. He said these people are attempting to lock innocent people up, and he disapproves of it.

[AstralSpirit]

There was some story recently about parties in the US government asking the producers of 24 to stop giving the terrorists ideas....
There is nothing more dangerous than an idea!!

Haven't we been here before? :doh:

[Dr Nigel]

...if we didn't have anything criminal, but still the other "pattern of disturbing" behavior, I still say something should be done.

But not criminal. A school should be allowed to kick someone out like that, no questions, and no lawsuits. You want an education, play by the rules of behavior we set. If you don't, go away. You're still free, but we have our freedom, too.

Well, yeah, except this kid was following his tutor's instructions. "Don't censor yourselves" was the instruction. I think that's pretty unequivocal. I think, under the circumstances described in the linked article, the teacher should have just had a quiet chat with the student to express his/her concern and then said no more about this to anyone.

The student does not appear to have transgressed any rules of the college.

If the student started to exhibit more extreme behaviour (oh, like, I don't know, maybe actually doing something that's antisocial), then it might be time to call in the counsellors.

[publius]

Yeah, because those millions of functional mentally ill people are always shooting up schools. Except oh, wait.


I'm afraid you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. First, I don't like laws telling colleges what they have to do much at all, for one thing. But that doesn't mean, colleges, on their own, can't be reasonable. No, were I in charge of a university, I wouldn't be throwing out students who had mental problems but were not causing problems.

But, if you got some wack-job scaring the other students and teachers to death, I would give that student his walking papers, and the nice man with the badge and gun would escort him off the premises.

I do not want the state to have the power to decide someone's sanity. That is the road to totalitarian tyranny. Their actions, however, and I would have a high standard of proof for this, are different, for practical reasons. But the idea of some program with the force of law to evaluate citizens and decide who is sane and who is not is abomination.

But, I want private individuals and organizations to have the freedom to set their own standards of behavior. Freedom is two-way street. Now, we're tying to make it as one way as possible: "I should be able to do whatever I want, and the law should force everyone else to tolerate it". There, only the law itself can do something, and that's what I don't want.

-Richard

[EvilEye]

I have never acted out on anything that has run through my head that was violent, illegal, or obscene. But the thoughts have been there, whether I was trying to contemplate , understand, or even enjoy it.

Should I be arrested?

Who hasn't been so angry they wished someone dead?

Who hasn't looked at gymnasts during the Olympics? (they're all underaged)

My point is at one time or another, we all have thoughts that could have us in serious trouble if they were a crime in and of themselves. Even if just for a moment.

You can't arrest someone for thinking. No matter how vile the thought. There's no victim. There's no evidence, and there's no crime.

To have a crime you must have Mens Rea & Actus Rea. The Mind to do it, and the ability (or apparent ability) to carry it out.

I might say that I wish President Bush was dead. That isn't a crime. But saying that I will kill him or have him killed is.

You can't arrest every kid on the planet no matter how bizzarr their thoughts or even word are. You CAN however look for those words and watch them. And when they do something against the law, you can move in.

Columbine.... Bullied? Check... Now look for signs.

Building bombs, and gathering weapons? Check.

Weapons illegal?... Call the cops.

[garykpo]

CNN carried an article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/27/student.essay.arrest.ap/index.html)this morning which I found far more disturbing than the content of the student's essay.

Essentially, the student's were given an essay to journal whatever poped into their minds. One student's essay contained some rather uneasy content, involving shootings and some other stuff.

Yet, after being questions, during which time the student said, "In creative writing, you're told to exaggerate," Lee said. "It was supposed to be just junk. ... There definitely is violent content, but they're taking it out of context and making it something it isn't," he was taken to another school and the school district was still evaluating punishment.

Why was he arrested? What law did he break? Why is the school district still evaluating punishment?

:doh:

Don't they have the slightest clue that such an approach would, if the student really is pathological, only breed further resentment which might lead to a response that's less imaginary than the contents of his assignment?

:wall:

Why not get him some help, instead? If anything, he should probably have a few sessions with a psychologist, preferrably paid for by the school system (since they're the only ones who're having coniptions about this).

But punishment? Again, for what?

:confused:

Are they simply grossly overreacting, both wrongly so, and in the wrong direction, because of what happened at Virginia Tech? So this is a CYA issue?

:rolleyes:

Please, and God help us, let's get off the narcissistic CYA avenue of response and start doing what's right.

In college I was forced to read one of the sickest books I've ever read, by an author named Jerzy Kozinsky (hopefully the spelling is somewhat close). In the book, the leading character is a young boy who is abandoned by his parents, is forced to watch incest, bestiality, is himself sexually abused, he's buried to his neck before being rescued, and all of this is described in pathetically graphic detail.

Well, guess what, folks? This filth was forced on me courtesy of the Virginia Tech English Department.

Ironic, huh?

But now we're arresting and punishing high school students for following assignment guidelines?

What's wrong with this picture?

:think:

I think the school administrators need to get a clue, and fast, before they do far greater damage by trying to CYA, blindly, mindlessly thrusting this student into the same category as the psychopath who rampaged my alma mater, rather than recognizing the problem (if there even is one) and responding appropriately with a tentative evaluation and dismissal if it's negative, or continued help if it's positive for certain traits harmful to society.

Hopefully, someone at this administration call pull their head * * * * and make a more salient decision along these lines.

:cool:

its nice to meet someone who has such a solid grasp on psycology i couldnt agree more what the hell were they thinking duh how about lets make a sniper or a mass murder i only hope people realize what theyre doing before its too late

[ad hominem]

I might say that I wish President Bush was dead. That isn't a crime.

i think the person who has the fourth post above yours does think this is a crime because you did not say i wish president bush were dead but if there are grammar and punctuation prisons in the future i will probably be serving time with you

[Gillianren]

But, if you got some wack-job scaring the other students and teachers to death, I would give that student his walking papers, and the nice man with the badge and gun would escort him off the premises.

But those are actions, not states of mind. Just being mentally ill is not, and should not be, enough. And you know, I'm okay with the law, because it should always be the actions, not the states of mind, and if the government has to step in to ensure that the state of mind is not enough, so be it.

[SockMonkey]

That's exactly what I was thinking. In fact, there were people on this board saying that people should have seen the signs, that Cho should have been forcibly hospitalized or detained in some way. So now they're doing it, I guess. But like others say, who guarantees they'll always get the right ones. People are not infallible, even psychiatrists.

I don't ask for infallibility, just something more than the apparent rampant incompetence and lack of common sense. It seems like no one has any sense of good judgement anymore.

[EvilEye]

i think the person who has the fourth post above yours does think this is a crime because you did not say i wish president bush were dead but if there are grammar and punctuation prisons in the future i will probably be serving time with you

i em sory

I leaughed out a cornea or sumthing.

[ad hominem]

i em sory

I leaughed out a cornea or sumthing.

it is ok with me i believe in freedom to speak how you like but some others are very intolerant

[Ronald Brak]

So just let me get this right. Writing a disturbing essay in the United States is illegal, but Halloween is legal?

[cjl]

it is ok with me i believe in freedom to speak how you like but some others are very intolerant

You're free to speak/write however you want.

We don't have to read it though

[publius]

I might say that I wish President Bush was dead. That isn't a crime. But saying that I will kill him or have him killed is.



Actually, if you say just about anything that could be interpreted as a threat to the president (or any of the other protected officials) publically, the guys in dark suits and sunglasses with little earphones in their ears who talk into their lapels will pay you a little visit and ask you some questions. That's the Secret Service. Years ago, Sen. Jesse Helms made some crack that "Clinton better not come down here". I believe the Secret Service did do a perfunctory investigation there.

Going from that to an actual arrest is another matter, but they investigate just about everything they run across. They take that stuff very seriously, and will make sure anyone who makes any such cracks appreciates just how serious it is.

And another interesting thing, POTUS has a little spherical "legal field" around him wherever he goes. A sphere of a certain radius around his person, wherever he may be, is a federally protected zone, in which your rights as a private citizen are severely curtailed from normal. That zone becomes federalized in effect, and basically, you must do whatever the boys in the sunglasses tell you to do. If you don't, things get ugly.

I actually got to hear Bush Sr. speak at a certain event, inside a room where I was there. The guys with the dark sunglasses were everywhere. Apparently there are a group of nuts, known to the Secret Service who tend to show up whenever the president goes to any particular area of the country. They are mostly harmless nuts who want to shout something, say demanding he release the UFO files or something.

Anyway, we had one show up there as I was walking toward the building where the show was to be held. Those guys in sunglasses appeared virtually out of thin air and surrounded that guy and escorted him away from the premises. Only later did I learn what actually happened there from someone who knew about that stuff.


-Richard

[Paul Beardsley]

I've been reading this thread with interest. I have not felt any need to contribute because people are saying what I am thinking.

However, there is also this:

i think the person who has the fourth post above yours does think this is a crime because you did not say i wish president bush were dead but if there are grammar and punctuation prisons in the future i will probably be serving time with you

(Followed by a remark about oppression.)

A couple of comments.

One, punctuation greatly assists the reader with his or her understanding of a text. It gives clues to the "tone of voice" of the writer. It distinguishes between the writer expressing an opinion, and the writer commenting on someone else's opinion. It makes text more manageable, more pleasant to read.

By contrast, the quoted piece is horrible to read. I had to read through it three times to be sure I'd got it, and guess what? It wasn't worth reading.

Two, the veiled attack on Gillian seems inappropriate for this board.

In conclusion, if ad hominem does get sent to a grammar and punctuation prison, I hope he remains there until he finds a way of ending his sentence.

[Van Rijn]

By contrast, the quoted piece is horrible to read. I had to read through it three times to be sure I'd got it, and guess what? It wasn't worth reading.

Two, the veiled attack on Gillian seems inappropriate for this board.

In conclusion, if ad hominem does get sent to a grammar and punctuation prison, I hope he remains there until he finds a way of ending his sentence.

Yes, I too have commented on his lack of punctuation, as have others, but he has ignored this. I've given up attempting to read his posts and have put him on my ignore list. I very rarely even use the ignore feature.

[Gillianren]

Yes, I too have commented on his lack of punctuation, as have others, but he has ignored this. I've given up attempting to read his posts and have put him on my ignore list. I very rarely even use the ignore feature.

I haven't used the "ignore" feature, but I don't read the posts.

[Fazor]

"High school student" and "common sense" are oxymorons. Now, "high school teacher" and "common sense" should be companions.


Sorry to get back to this soo late but I think this is part of the problem. Yeah, kids are kids and they do dumb things. But the perception now seems that it's okay for kids to do whatever they want because they don't know any better. The lack of common sense in Highschool was maddening. It wasn't any better in college. Now I'm 25 (as of today ;)) and I'm starting to realize that these "kids without common sense" tend to grow up to be, well, adults without common sense.

Again, yes kids do dumb things and take risks they shouldn't when they're young. We all did it--or at least, I certianly did. But I could also think for myself and do some reasoning. I'll give an example that's oddly appropriate:

The columbine tradgety happened during my Junior year of Highschool. Well, within a month of that incident I had a book report due. I was doing a report on the book "One Shot, One Kill" (About Carlos Hathcock, US sniper during Vietnam). My visual aid even had pictures of the types of weapons he used. I had already been doing this project when Columbine happened, and so I talked to the teacher and let her know the two were not related and that I did not condone those kid's actions nor did I want to glorify violence. In fact, I had to kinda play it all off to make sure no one in the class was uncomfortable (I think my huge fear of public speaking when I was in HS tended to make any presentation more comical than anything else anyway ;)).

Just because someone's "a kid" doesnt mean they don't have to use some judgment. And highschool's not that young...he really should have known better.

[Ilya]

But those are actions, not states of mind. Just being mentally ill is not, and should not be, enough. And you know, I'm okay with the law, because it should always be the actions, not the states of mind, and if the government has to step in to ensure that the state of mind is not enough, so be it.

For arrest and prosecution, yes, ACTIONS must be required -- which is why I think charging this student with "disorderly conduct" (of all things!) is nuts, and any defense lawyer should blow it to bits.

But for commitment to a mental institution THOUGHTS are (theoretically) sufficient. A person who is a danger to others should be treated, whether he wants it or not. I am not saying this particular kid is necessarily a danger to society. But if he is, then he belongs in a mental hospital, not in jail.

Problem is that excesses of psychiatric "treatment" in early 20th Century made involuntary commitment very politically unpopular. It's much easier to put someone in jail than into a mental hospital.

And BTW, since he is 18, the school broke no law in releasing his name.

Sadly (and ironically), this whole incident appears to have dashed his aspirations to become a Marine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18353425/?GT1=9246). Aren't Marines supposed to be violent? :)

[EvilEye]

Actually, if you say just about anything that could be interpreted as a threat to the president (or any of the other protected officials) publically, the guys in dark suits and sunglasses with little earphones in their ears who talk into their lapels will pay you a little visit and ask you some questions. That's the Secret Service. Years ago, Sen. Jesse Helms made some crack that "Clinton better not come down here". I believe the Secret Service did do a perfunctory investigation there.

Going from that to an actual arrest is another matter, but they investigate just about everything they run across. They take that stuff very seriously, and will make sure anyone who makes any such cracks appreciates just how serious it is.

And another interesting thing, POTUS has a little spherical "legal field" around him wherever he goes. A sphere of a certain radius around his person, wherever he may be, is a federally protected zone, in which your rights as a private citizen are severely curtailed from normal. That zone becomes federalized in effect, and basically, you must do whatever the boys in the sunglasses tell you to do. If you don't, things get ugly.

I actually got to hear Bush Sr. speak at a certain event, inside a room where I was there. The guys with the dark sunglasses were everywhere. Apparently there are a group of nuts, known to the Secret Service who tend to show up whenever the president goes to any particular area of the country. They are mostly harmless nuts who want to shout something, say demanding he release the UFO files or something.

Anyway, we had one show up there as I was walking toward the building where the show was to be held. Those guys in sunglasses appeared virtually out of thin air and surrounded that guy and escorted him away from the premises. Only later did I learn what actually happened there from someone who knew about that stuff.


-Richard

I don't have an argument with that. We're talking about arrest. Not questioning. And even with the men in dark blue suits, I still have the right to an attorney before I have to answer any questions. Tough for them.

You don't have to be read the Miranda warning for it to be in effect. You also don't have to be under arrest to use your Miranda rights.

[Doodler]

Sadly (and ironically), this whole incident appears to have dashed his aspirations to become a Marine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18353425/?GT1=9246). Aren't Marines supposed to be violent? :)


Sorry to dash your dream here, but the only heroes America acknowledges are those who have cover stories written up to cover blatant bungling by commanders or friendly fire incidents.

Marines cannot be violent. If they are violent, they might actually hurt someone trying to hurt Americans. This is not acceptable to the spineless huddled masses yearning to appease. If you be nice to the mean man with the AK-47, he'll go away because he's so humane that he couldn't conceive of something so evil as murder.






Man, I've so got a case of Monday...

[Fazor]

Wow doodler, a little more cynical than usual today I see :) It's monday though, so I understand.

[Doodler]

Wow doodler, a little more cynical than usual today I see :) It's monday though, so I understand.

Decaffeination has not been gentle to me, either.

[Gillianren]

But for commitment to a mental institution THOUGHTS are (theoretically) sufficient. A person who is a danger to others should be treated, whether he wants it or not. I am not saying this particular kid is necessarily a danger to society. But if he is, then he belongs in a mental hospital, not in jail.

Well, yes, and I thought about that after I posted. However, I don't think it's necessarily the place of college administration or a high school to make that determination. If the person is a danger to others, they should get treatment; if they are treatment resistant, they should be locked in a mental institution. However, all of that is different from being expelled. Further, "a danger to others" tends to be noticed based on actions anyway unless the person is already in regular therapy. (That's "regular" as in "steady," for what it's worth.)

Happy birthday, Fazor, and you have a point. I'm okay with high school kids making dumb mistakes. However, the problem comes when they aren't made to learn from them. If it's just forgiven, no consequences, because they're in high school, they don't learn anything other than that they can get away with things because they're in high school.

[Jim]

Sorry to get back to this soo late but I think this is part of the problem. Yeah, kids are kids and they do dumb things. But the perception now seems that it's okay for kids to do whatever they want because they don't know any better. ...

I hope you didn't think that's what I was advocating. My point was that they need more supevision and guidance because of that lack, not that the lack excuses anything.

Just because someone's "a kid" doesnt mean they don't have to use some judgment. And highschool's not that young...he really should have known better.

It would be nice if he used some judgment, but he did follow the "ground rules" set down by the teacher.

[mugaliens]

And mugaliens, you and Sp1ke are on the same side. You read his post wrong. He said these people are attempting to lock innocent people up, and he disapproves of it.

I stand corrected, Gillianren!

[mugaliens]

Actually, if you say just about anything that could be interpreted as a threat to the president (or any of the other protected officials) publically, the guys in dark suits and sunglasses with little earphones in their ears who talk into their lapels will pay you a little visit and ask you some questions.

Very much agreed, Publius. Others, you may not wish to make such statements, even in jest, because certain people with broad powers either have no sense of humor, just don't care, or both.

[publius]

Very much agreed, Publius. Others, you may not wish to make such statements, even in jest, because certain people with broad powers either have no sense of humor, just don't care, or both.

Yeah. Ask any talk radio hosts and station personnel about that. :) Locally, several years ago some character called in ranting about something that was going on at that time and said the president at the time was so stupid he ought to be "whopped upside the head" or something like that.

Well, the guys in the sunglasses heard about that and came calling. They had many questions to ask, and were trying to determine the identity of the caller who said that. That host learned his lesson about letting stuff like that slip.

Heck, ol' Art Bell has mentioned this. Every year he holds this "predictions" show where various would-be fortune tellers predict future events. If any of those predictions happened to be the president or other high officials suffering some ill fate, the Secret Service comes calling. That is one thing he does not allow because of it.

And if one this board, someone made some similiar statement, you better believe poor Phil and Fraser would be talking to those guys in the sunglasses too, and handing over IP records.

Do they have a sense of humor? Well not that I've seen. They look at you, but they don't look at you like normal people. The only thing they care about is are you a possible threat, and their minds are trained to focus on that and little else. And they pack some serious firepower, hidden away very cleverly. I don't know how they have the room, but if the stuff hit the fan, they'd probably have an M-60 machine gun with tripod pulled out of some orifice somewhere.

Some comedian was on Leno or similiar, joking about some presidential event he attended and how the Secret Service were like robots. He said he decided to see if he could make one laugh, and went up to him and did a "Curly" of the Three Stooges impression, "Ohh, a wise guy, eh?". The guy didn't say anything, nor crack a smile, but simply took his two fingers and made the "eye poke" move.

That famous comendian could get away with that. Joe Sixpack will not.

-Richard

[EvilEye]

Beauracracy is at the same time a Gosend, and Devilish.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by publius Actually, if you say just about anything that could be interpreted as a threat to the president (or any of the other protected officials) publically, the guys in dark suits and sunglasses with little earphones in their ears who talk into their lapels will pay you a little visit and ask you some questions.Very much agreed, Publius. Others, you may not wish to make such statements, even in jest, because certain people with broad powers either have no sense of humor, just don't care, or both.One wonders if the dark suit with matching sunglasses guys paid Venus Ramey a visit after she told Jay Leno what she thought of Dubya in no uncertain terms.

[LurchGS]

One of the high schools in BA's new neck of the woods had a talent show a couple years ago. While the school either approved the lyrics as sung, or the band submitted a false set (accounts vary), the lyrics as sung definitely constituted a threat to the President.

The very next day, there were a lot of pointed questions being asked in very pointed manners. Raised a big uproar around here - between the "they're only high school kids" faction and the "it doesn't matter, they're old enough to know better" faction.

I've met a number of Secret Service members in my lifetime - and at one time even considered joining. Not that I'd be one of the protective service johnnies - I decided at an early age that *no* politician is worth my life. I was more interested in counterfeiting. Stopping it, that is.
The weapons they carry rarely exceed handgun size. They're hellish accurate with them, and trained up the wazoo in shoot/no shoot. The idea being, if 150 guys (or however large the group is that travels with The Boss) with loaded .45s (and probably a couple reloads) can't stop an assassination attempt, it ain't gonna get stopped.

That's why the president and vice president are almost never in the same city at the same time. It's hard enough to raise the manpower needed, and to plan appropriately in order to overwhelm the Protective Service in one instance - it's damn difficult to do it twice at the same time.

[publius]

The weapons they carry rarely exceed handgun size. They're hellish accurate with them, and trained up the wazoo in shoot/no shoot. The idea being, if 150 guys (or however large the group is that travels with The Boss) with loaded .45s (and probably a couple reloads) can't stop an assassination attempt, it ain't gonna get stopped.

That's why the president and vice president are almost never in the same city at the same time. It's hard enough to raise the manpower needed, and to plan appropriately in order to overwhelm the Protective Service in one instance - it's damn difficult to do it twice at the same time.

Lurch,

Their handguns are something that shoots a .357 SIG, now, and the ones guarding the president carry far more than that. Well, not all of them, I'm sure, but it's a (large) team thing. They pack Uzi's, P90s, and other submachine guns. I think they even carry some "sawed off" style of shotgun.

Whenever the president is going to go somewhere, the Secret Service (and others) send an advance team to fully scope out the area and plan out everything.

When I went to that particular event, someone pointed out the agents to me. They had guys on roofs all over the place, who were top notch snipers carrying sniper rifles. One of those guys could put one between your eyes at 1000 yards in his sleep.

If anything hit the fan there, you would see more small-arms firepower be pulled out that you would believe could be concentrated in one place. And after 9/11 you can be sure anti-aircraft weapons are close by. It wouldn't surpise me if some of the guys on the roof have Stingers.

As an old joke goes, POTUS is the one guy who can seriously say "Oh, yeah? You and what army?" and back it up. And on the small as well as large scale.

In a hypothetical sense, something I'd like to see is a top of the line special forces assault team take on the presidential protection team and see who would win. It would be a spectacular thing to watch. And the spent shell casings would probably be knee deep after it was done. I'm telling you, you wouldn't believe the firepower those guys in the sunglasses can pull out.

-Richard

[HenrikOlsen]

In a hypothetical sense, something I'd like to see is a top of the line special forces assault team take on the presidential protection team and see who would win. It would be a spectacular thing to watch. And the spent shell casings would probably be knee deep after it was done. I'm telling you, you wouldn't believe the firepower those guys in the sunglasses can pull out.
They'd probably just call in an air strike.
The Secret Service against high altitude bombers ?
They'd be outclassed so badly they might as well not be there.

It's not the threat they're there to stop.

[Fazor]

I hope you didn't think that's what I was advocating. My point was that they need more supevision and guidance because of that lack, not that the lack excuses anything.

Sorry, not that I know you, but from your posts I've read on various topics you did not seem to be one that would be advocating lack of common sense as a valid excuse.

It would be nice if he used some judgment, but he did follow the "ground rules" set down by the teacher.
Again, I do think the teacher and those subsequently on up the ladder handled this "poorly" (understatment of the year). At the same time, just because it's within the loose guidlines set, that's still not an excuse for lack of personal judgement. Although society as a whole does seem to be going more and more towards, "Lets see how far I can go and get away with it". rebelious mentality. Admittadly, I have not talked to this kid so I cannot say what his mentatlity was, or what he was really trying to do.

I hate to do it, but now I'll play devil's advocate a bit (I hate blaming the media for children's actions, but...) With movies like Saw becomeing more popular among teenage audiences, perhaps he was just trying to go that route. I can't stand these movies. Graphic for the sake of being graphic just does not appeal to me in the least. But to others it does.

This is nothing new; it has been one of my biggest critisisms for Stephen King's work (don't get me wrong, I like most of his stuff, but to me he occasionally falls into this Graphic just for Graphic's sake feeling to me). Anyway, one of the first things a young budding author does is try to immitate the works that they personally are into. That is probably all this kid was doing.

To recap: I think kid should have used better judgement, but so could the authorities involved. Of course, we don't get the real story anyway, just the mediaized version of it.

[LurchGS]

To recap: I think kid should have used better judgement, but so could the authorities involved. Of course, we don't get the real story anyway, just the mediaized version of it.

Yeah, in reality it was some kindergardener who drew a bunch of stick figures shooting each other. :)

[SeanF]

Yeah, in reality it was some kindergardener who drew a bunch of stick figures shooting each other. :)
Why does this thread all of a sudden remind me of The Sixth Sense?

"I draw...people smiling, dogs running, rainbows. They don't have meetings about rainbows."

[Dons]

As to the high schooler that wrote a creative essay and got in trouble for it, by the request of the teacher to be creative and “unbound”--- the message is clear:


It was a trap set by the school administration. This is done all the time and nation wide.


In Oregon, there are public school surveys every year where students are intimidated to take, where all students are required to take unless specific instructions are received by the school administration by the parents. The “refuses” as they are called are herded into a classroom and sit with no books in silence, negative notes are made in their school records, names and address are taken with s sign in sheet, and they are watched very close. In some cases CPS (Child Protective Services) are called out to do a home inspection as the students are called “anti-social”, with obvious home problems as the survey test is for the “childes safety” that the parents don’t care about—yeah right.


To those students that do take survey test, they are asked loaded questions, question based on faults premise, open-ended questions, and un-clarified questions. For example


How many times have you thought about suicide in the last 30 days—1-5, 6-9, 10-15 times?


Of course, there is no right answer, any answer gets the student busted and CPS is called out, or the student is put on the “watch list”.


I’m not exaggerating, look it up in your own state—start with a Google search, enter, public school survey test (your state). If there is continued interest, I will post the results of my study with the Oregon survey test questions. And the sad part is, these questions are given to 8 years olds.


The off spin of these surveys is NOT to prevent anything, but rather for the school board to get greater funding showing the massive extent of “mental illness” in society and to increase the role of CPS (governments) in private family life.


The best option is to NOT have your child take the test, lie and say for “religious reasons that are private” (or some other lie) but never tell the truth, that they are just a bunch of nosey teachers looking to stirrup trouble with faults pretences and loaded questions, and CPS agents are looking for fresh meat to devour along with a higher pay scale based on how many accusations are made. And of course the students are just pawns in this entire affair.


When a teacher says – write an essay and be honest--- that is a trap and only ill is to follow. Mark that teacher and avoid that person at all cost, as they are a danger. Instruct your child to write about the man in moon and how sweet and genital he is, never on the ills of society, or on the atrocities of war, even if it is fictitious story. Tell your child to be silent, say little, don’t expose yourself, study hard, and read and learn all they can---society is meaner, and more nasty and deceptive than you think. If there is recourse to be had against a teacher or others—take them to court where it is safe, where authority counts and is legitimate, and hopefully good reasoning will prevail (and if not appeal to a higher court if possible).


In psychology—anything can be interpreted as “mental illness”. Psychology is NOT a science, never has been and never will be. Is used to create problems where none exist, and to offer solutions to problems, at great expense, that is nothing but trivia, and treatments are only to convince a person (mostly by coercion) they are in denial of a problem that the therapist made up.


The previous poster is right--- there is NO way telling who will go bonkers and hurt others. The biggest crimes, the crime of fraud, go unreported, as the perpetrators operate in the legitimacy of governments. That being, it is OK for the president of the USA to declare war and convince a nation to fund and fight a war, with all of its horrid atrocities, but to write about it in the public school class room gets the student expelled and brain examined by sooth-saying shawmen, whose only intent is to deceive and to make the student crazy.


In law, the field that I work in, there is a big difference in Mens Rea (the thought) and Actus Rea, (the act) as applied to Torts and criminal law, than the same used in Psychology. The difference is night and day; where no crime has been committed against the state nor persons, nor intent to comit a crime or tort. A story is not an “intent” to comit a crime, NOT an intent to persuade others in solicitation to comit a crime, and is NOT avoiding a crime, or tort, because of circumstances (crimes being codified in statutes).


In Psychology, the “potential thought” or the “potencies to think” is the error, and the thought itself is the hideous crime, even if it is in the form of a fictitious story. And of course, the cure is therapy unto stupidness, or a chemical lobotomy. In court, a therapist is the easiest to discredit as the testimony is based on “opinion” and there are three other opinions of credibility to the contrary. However, this does not stop the army of psychoanalyst from marching into the classroom and declare every one but the teacher insane, or potentially insane, as there is just too much money in it, and people are taught to be excessively gullible.


Don

[Fazor]

Thanks for the input Don, but...

You left out the fact that those student surveys are anonymous, and therefore are useless for putting any students on any sort of "watch list".

I also fail to see any evidence that this assignment was a deliberate trap set by the school on the students. If so, it's a fairly faulty trap as this was an elective creative-writing class, and the assignment would have only gone to approximately 3% of the student population.

I'm glad you know some legalese, but Torts are lawsuits between private parties, not criminal cases.

Also, be carefull about commenting on war and presidential measures as criminal acts, as this is a political statement, and not allowed by board rules.

As far as the biggest crime, Fraud, going unreported, please cite your proof. My final paper for my 300-level Criminology class was on Fraud and corporate crime, I had plenty of cases to pick from.

[Van Rijn]

Instruct your child to write about the man in moon and how sweet and genital he is,

That could result in an interesting counselling session.

[publius]

I remember some of those "surveys" back when I was in high school. Back then, (supposedly) the form was anonymous -- they assured us no one could identify the individual who filled out a particular survey form. They were those type of nosey questions for the purposes of the do-gooders and those who take advantage of do-gooders' propensity to spend taxpayers' money like drunken sailors. :)

Back then, and this is something I still do today, is to lie shamelessy, hoping to help mess up their data. And many of my friends had the same idea. There was the drug and alcohol part, and I of course answered that I drank a 1/5th of Jack Daniel's every morning before school, and took all the drugs they asked about all the time. I think I said I shot heroin on one of them.

And then there was the sex part. Yep, I had sex all the time with multiple partners I said. And just about all the other stuff about home life and all that (yeah, my father beats me with 2x4 every days).

I'm sure that was thrown out, so obviously overboard was it. :lol: So the trick is to lie without looking to bad.

And that's what I encourage everyone to do with these surverys. Lie and make up stuff so as to render the data useless.

ETA: And something else I remember doing -- I think it was in high school. There was one survey where the questions were designed to determine the student's knowledge about sex, birth control, and STDs. I lied there as well, saying things "you can't get pregnant the first time" and all that.

Back then, that was just my way of giving them the finger was asking such nosey questions, but I realize it was probably counterproductive (if others did the same thing, and my little circle did stuff like this all the time for kicks). If they believed the data, it would be used as evidence for more programs, more money being spent. So rather than giving them the finger, I was probably helping them on that score.

But seriously my goal, and I would encourage parents to train their children to do this, is to just skew that data so onbviously that it makes the whole thing useless.

-Richard

[Fazor]

And then there was the sex part. Yep, I had sex all the time with multiple partners I said. And just about all the other stuff about home life and all that (yeah, my father beats me with 2x4 every days).


Now if ever I saw a fun quote to use out of context, this is it!
::Quickly files away for future use::
:whistle:

[publius]

Now if ever I saw a fun quote to use out of context, this is it!
::Quickly files away for future use::
:whistle:


:D Yep, I pretty much fouled my own nest with that one, didn't I? If I ever ran for office or something, the opposition would find that quote, and I'd be up there 'splainin' what I meant. :lol:

-Richard

[Gillianren]

That could result in an interesting counselling session.

Indeed.

Dons, I hope you realize that there really are people who are mentally ill and in need of help, and that you are wrong about psychology. It's saving lives all over the world. It's not as exact a science as physics, but for one thing, CPS workers make very little money, so it's not as though a raise will get them to the same income a similarly-qualified person would in the private sector or anything.

I am mentally ill, and I think Gods for the help I can be provided. I also sincerely hope, for their sake, that no one you love is mentally ill and subject to your harangue on the evils of a profession that does more good than harm--a lot more.

[publius]

CPS (or whatever they call the equivalent agencies from state to state) has enormous power, and they wield it with a heavy hand. Google on "CPS abuse of power" and start reading, if you're interested.

Perhaps the most famous case of this type of stuff run amok was the Wenatchee, WI "sex ring" case, where entirely unfounded, lunatic accusations of systemic child abuse were made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_sex_ring

That abomination was the truly a modern equivalent of the Salem witch trials, where "child molester" replaced "witch".

CPS has so much power because it's "for the children", something no one will dare oppose. Patriotism is no longer the last refuge of a scoundrel, it's "the children". And that aversion by the public and politicians to anything presented as "helping the children" is what gives them such run-amok powers.

All it takes is for some nosey neighbor or one with a grudge to call CPS and report you for child abuse. That's all it takes for them to come in, and investigate the heck out of you. If you don't cooperate, they'll come down on you with everything they've got. Woe unto you, indeed.

The odds of it happening to you are pretty slim, but I'd advise everyone to read up on just what to do if it does happen. These CPS agents, and other social workers do not have police power of themselves (yet), so they can't legally force their way in. You can refuse to talk to them. However, that will be used against you, and they'll show up later with the cops and warrants.

This happened locally once, a completely unfounded accusation was made by some busy body, the parents were outraged when the CPS showed up, and it went badly. And that brought up the discussion on just what one should do if they show up, demanding to inspect your home and interview your children.
-Richard

[publius]

The above Wenatchee case reminded of another "good" one,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_case

Accusations that defied the laws of physics were involved there, and put people in jail. This is a family forum, so I won't post a direct link to a Wiki article, but look at the two "see also" links on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perineal_reflex

That "wink" put people in jail, ladies and gentlemen, and this is the kind of mob hysteria that can happen when "the children" are involved. People just loose all reason. Just imagine the CPS coming in, examining your child for that reflexive behavior, and then putting you in jail for sex abuse because of it.

-Richard

[Dons]

To Frazor:

Don: I will admit I got a little extreme, but having worked in this field, I’m not that far off, and by far closer to reality than the psychologist I have interviewed many times in defense trials, and heard their confession to monetary gains, social gains, over the care of the principle. Psychology is manipulative, and within the field, there is no dependable standard to go by. In addition, every one wants to psychoanalyze every one, be they trained or not, and training only makes a person more deceptive. This is certainly NOT a science but rather soothsaying with wizardry.

Thanks for the input Don, but...

You left out the fact that those student surveys are anonymous, and therefore are useless for putting any students on any sort of "watch list".

Don:

That is what they say, but don’t tell me teachers do not know their students, and any student can be found out as who wrote or marched what. As even other students are “enticed” to confess on others they do not like. Not only by the seating arrangements, can one find who marched what, but by the order the survey test are handed out and collected, and this is not even a start of identifying a student with the results of a “so called” anonymous survey test, or those that refuse to take the test. Being in court ordered discovery, you will be surprised what shows up. I love my field of work.

This is a very extensive subject. However, is fact ALL students are counted as potential “social hazards” or there would be no need for the survey test in the first place. This alone is very negative and enforces negativity, is a direct attack on a person (student’s) sanity, credibility and family; and do not think students do not feel it, even if they can’t put words to their emotions. The “black list” is based on opinions, and when loaded questions are asked that enforce negative opinions, what have you have is nothing but a witch-hunt.

Valid socializations should be taught and up front, not deceptive with underhanded game playing where a child’s life is on the line for a few bucks, as is most common, as shown by the article in reference, and that is not even a start. Reference—your state to show insanity of the students by loaded survey questions.

Ok then let us go by “total amenity”, what is the point of the survey questions if it not to gain greater funding, showing how crazy the students and families are. As no direct help can be given in amenity. In addition, what is the cure---more psychoanalyst—that beg for more money for a worthy cause. Fortunately, there are limits; torts and law are part of those limits. Psychoanalyst are subject to lawsuits under torts, and I believe that is their only limits, fears of fines by writ of the court. They should rightly fear the principle, as the principle is not powerless, and is not without means to protect themselves.

Guilt is shown by actions even in mens rea of intent, not in a stupid story in what the student was set up to write, nor in vomitable survey questions, thinking he/she has permission of self expression, but the entire ordeal is a fraud. More is learned in school than what is written in books.

^^^^^^

I also fail to see any evidence that this assignment was a deliberate trap set by the school on the students. If so, it's a fairly faulty trap as this was an elective creative-writing class, and the assignment would have only gone to approximately 3% of the student population.

Don:

The low profile does not make any difference, this “trap” has been going on for years, even back in the early 1960’s in this country, and given the of history of psychology, that the basis was copied from religions and politics, the simple trap has been set for over 2,000 years; that is to get a person to confess on themselves. The trick is to set loaded questions, as “have you stopped kicking your dog lately”, as any answer given is the wrong answer.

It takes no sense to reason in society that “elective” is NOT really elective, and anonyms is NOT really anonyms.

I don’t understand the game, obviously, as the proper way to teach students, in this circumstance, reality of society, would be to say up front, Do NOT write a negative essay (story), no matter how you are compelled to write it by people in authority, as what you write WILL BE held against you, in any way or means possible, as there is big cash in your destruction, called by many names, even that of “human services”.

^^^^^

I'm glad you know some legalese, but Torts are lawsuits between private parties, not criminal cases.

Don:

You are correct as that is why I made the difference, and NO teacher is beyond torts, as what criminal law does not cover, torts do (torts are also called common law). In addition, people can face both civil litigation and criminal litigation in the USA. This is a real double whammy. I do not argue with it, it is OK in my book, as the “civilians” have access to the courts to set wrongs right based on common law or torts. Torts are not codified statutes enforced by the state, but rather person to person based on the philosophy of right and wrongs, where no incarcerations exist, but rather fines and injunctions by court order and writs. Both, however, are enforced by police powers with the same authority as given to the courts by constitutions, the basis of law.

^^^^^

Also, be carefull about commenting on war and presidential measures as criminal acts, as this is a political statement, and not allowed by board rules.

Don:

Your warning is taken and noted for very good reasons, I agree. I will watch closely on myself. If I get out of line, remind me, I will relent and learn, or voluntarily excuse myself, as I am a guest on this board.

^^^^^

As far as the biggest crime, Fraud, going unreported, please cite your proof. My final paper for my 300-level Criminology class was on Fraud and corporate crime, I had plenty of cases to pick from.

Don:

OK, I’m a little out of line here, a little excited utterance in the heat of free lance writing, but the test of “corporate loyalty” is to see if a person can “report” negatively on themselves by some means or provocation is common, if so, you fail corporate advancements. The witch-hunt game continues, not much different from in high school. More is learned in high school than written in the books, one might say. The teacher in the article of question is certainly an example of this provocation.

For now, I will take your word that corporate crime is the leader, and where did they get that? High schools maybe and the way they were treated by psychoanalyst along with deceptive teachers?

Don

[Maksutov]

[edit]That abomination was the truly a modern equivalent of the Salem witch trials, where "child molester" replaced "witch"....Amazing how language adapts itself to current events, or is forced to by those who think they would benefit from the changes. Remember that the object of Newspeak was to make it impossible to think bad thoughts, e.g., alternatives to the regime's policies ("thoughtcrime").

One aspect of Newspeak is it is adaptable and never obsolete. Yesterday's "communist" is now today's "terrorist", and where once the Red Scare witch hunts resulted in many people losing their jobs for no other reasons than being on a "blacklist", hearsay, and innuendo, with today's equivalent people are harassed and sometimes locked up without benefit of legal representation and/or a fair trial based on a "name list", hearsay, or innuendo. I don't know if the TV is watching us as it was with Winston Smith et al, but there is a very good possibility that when you're listening to someone on the phone, the phone is listening to you.

I hear some people talking about "Either you're with me or you're supporting the terrorists." and I think I'm hearing the rantings of a fellow named McCarthy.

If Arthur Miller were still alive, he'd probably be working on The Crucible, Part II.

[publius]

You know, it may not be all that much difference from "witch". Many of these cases stemmed from, or at least were related to a "Satanic cult" hysteria that swept over the nation, fearing bands of Satanists out there committing ritual child rape, even human sacrifice. At one time, supposed experts said that *60,000* children were abducted by Satanic cults every year in the US. When asked to reconcile that with, you know, the lack of dead child bodies scattered over the landscape, they claimed they conceived and gave birth to children in secret for the express purpose of sacrifice.

Yes, it many ways it was a real witch hunt.

And what stick in my craw is that professionals went right along with all that hysteria. "Dr. Wink" and his counterpart in Britain, obsessed with certain reflexive actions of a certain orifice being prime examples. That crap was used as expert evidence in court.

-Richard

[Dons]

CPS (or whatever they call the equivalent agencies from state to state) has enormous power, and they wield it with a heavy hand. Google on "CPS abuse of power" and start reading, if you're interested.

Perhaps the most famous case of this type of stuff run amok was the Wenatchee, WI "sex ring" case, where entirely unfounded, lunatic accusations of systemic child abuse were made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_sex_ring

That abomination was the truly a modern equivalent of the Salem witch trials, where "child molester" replaced "witch".

CPS has so much power because it's "for the children", something no one will dare oppose. Patriotism is no longer the last refuge of a scoundrel, it's "the children". And that aversion by the public and politicians to anything presented as "helping the children" is what gives them such run-amok powers.

All it takes is for some nosey neighbor or one with a grudge to call CPS and report you for child abuse. That's all it takes for them to come in, and investigate the heck out of you. If you don't cooperate, they'll come down on you with everything they've got. Woe unto you, indeed.

The odds of it happening to you are pretty slim, but I'd advise everyone to read up on just what to do if it does happen. These CPS agents, and other social workers do not have police power of themselves (yet), so they can't legally force their way in. You can refuse to talk to them. However, that will be used against you, and they'll show up later with the cops and warrants.

This happened locally once, a completely unfounded accusation was made by some busy body, the parents were outraged when the CPS showed up, and it went badly. And that brought up the discussion on just what one should do if they show up, demanding to inspect your home and interview your children.
-Richard




Publius:


I could not agree with you more. CPS is dangerous and needs to be controlled. In addition, CPS is controlled by laws and torts, but not to the extent it should be. As of to this date CPS is the “governments” strong arm to indoctrinate, weed out, socialize, and “train” the next generation.

You will never find a greater person than myself that demands, by all reasonable means, to be law abiding, but when a student is punished for free expressions in a stupid ill written story, as a student myself, I must protest.

(CPS, Child Protection Services, is the generic name given to the 50 states, plus federal, organizations to enhance child welfare, imprinting, at the expense of civil liberties. So no single government is mentioned. The mandatory reporters of potential crimes, crimes and/or torts, suspected possible crimes, among many, are the teachers in public schools. This is a fact of the society we live in, and not projective neither to any philosophy, nor to USA states nor political nor religious, standing.)


This topic on this board, if worded properly, non-combative, but with proper decency (and respect to others) should be fair game. But I have been wrong before , and as I said, I am a guest, and subject to peer review. So let us be nice and talk freely as it is a rare oprotunity. And NO adjatives have ever bothered me.



Don

[publius]

You know, I'm sort of glad this came up because I've been reading. Here's another case that happened in Britain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal

A doctor, named Marietta Higgs (and another colleague at the same medical center) was of the opinion that about 10% of children were victims of sexual abuse by their parents and families. She was "on a mission" apparently, like some of these alarmists who throw out all these inflated numbers.

She used one of those techniques, RAD (you look up what that is), and in 1987 diagnosed 121 cases of child sexual abuse in 5 months. Based on her personal, exaggerated opinion, and the dubious RAD technique, she was performing genital and rectal exams on children brought into the clinic for complaints having nothing to do with those areas, without any "informed consent". One child came in with asthma, and the doctor started looking at the other end.

*She believed child abuse was rampant, and she was looking to find it*

It started out with lower class families who had their children taken away from them, and parents put in jail. It was only after she started accusing upper class families, who had the resources to fight and make a stink, was anything done. There was some march by many of the accused parents that resulted in a big inquiry that demonstrated the allegations were bunk.

This is the kind of havoc these various do-gooders can wreak.

And I'll give you a close personal example, nowhere as serious as that, but the same thing. One of the do-gooders causes that made the rounds a few years back was spousal abuse, wife beating. That's a terrible thing when it's really happening. So the (hysterical) advocates, again inflating numbers to try to get public support for their cause, caused doctors all over the country to start looking for signs of battered wives. Laws even required them to report it, etc, etc.

Well, one night my mother's lip started bleeding profusely. She's always been bad to get "fever blisters", and she managed, going to the bathroom in the dark, to bump her lip against the edge of a door right on that fever blister. There was some little artery right there that was ruptured.

That sucker was spewing blood pretty good and she had to do something. That late at night meant the emergency room, which she desparately dreaded (and me too), but the bleeding wouldn't stop. So my father takes her.

I'm sure you're guessing where this is going. The examing nurse asked her "How long has your husband been hitting you?" My mother was mortified. She couldn't believe it. She said she almost got up and walked out, she'd just bleed until she could go to her doctor in the morning, but didn't. She ended up with a stitch or two in her lip, and had to deny my father was beating her many times.

She did not tell my father about until the next morning. Why? Because she knew he would act just like the maniac they suspected he was if he knew he was being accused of beating her. As I would, and just about anyone with half a sense of honor.

It made her so mad, she wrote a letter to the hospital complaining. They sent something back apologizing, but "we're just trying to help you".

And to this day, my father will not go to that hospital, even to visit sick friends.

-Richard

[Gillianren]

I'm curious, guys. What percentage of children do you think get taken away from their parents who don't deserve it versus ones who do? Do you think there are actually a lot of kids who get taken away from parents who really do abuse them, who really don't take proper care of them, who really shouldn't be parents? How many versus the ones that in your inexpert opinion are unjustified?

[publius]

Here's a little primer on your rights if CPS ever comes calling. You do not have to let them in your house, nor speak to your children. They've got to get a warrant for that, and it will be the cops who would actually execute that warrant. The social workers have no such power on their own, but they love to try to intimidate people into believing they must comply.

http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/tempfiles/Child%20Protection%20Services%20and%20the%20Juveni le%20Justice%20System.pdf

Such things are tricky, and if you loose your cool, it can go badly. The thing to do is remain calm, refuse to let them in, but let them see the child. Seeing the child will negate any "imminent harm" claim they might be able to make. If you don't let them see the child, they could claim that is evidence the child is in immediate danger. If they see the child with their own eyes, they can't make that claim.

The good thing is, (with proper legal talent backing you up), the courts generally uphold your constiutional rights. However, these agencies are well skilled into tricking you into giving up your rights. If you let them in, that alone gives them a lot of power they othewise wouldn't have. And never sign anything............

-Richard

[Dons]

That could result in an interesting counselling session.

Yeah that would be interesting. No doubt, the topic would turn to sex, and deviance, as if a child of eight would know the difference if not taught by the questions.


As with Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), German, the most influential in psychology, interpreted everything as sexual repressions and when released, society, and the person is harmed. No doubt the man-in-the-moon is a sex maniac, shown by a ladies cycle, pasted on to males and females from conception to birth.


The entire contorts of Freud is BS, as for Freud to make the claim of such deviance also condemns himself, but he is held righteous. In addition, the poor people he suckered money out of, had not a clue, other than by the “church” that at the time counted all such intimacy as immoral, so Freud was right, so by shock and awe, Freud made big bucks, and he knew what he was doing. He was also a drugy.


This same perverted construct is brought to USA schools, in the name of “sex ed” or family planning, (what ever, not that knowledge is bad in any way). But Woo be to the youngster that writes a story on sex, much less on ants in the field, or the love to their baby brother or sister, or pick a subject, it is all interpreted to be sexual deviance, and more state intervention is required, obviously the child is being damaged. Yeah, by the structures of education in deviance of logic and nonsence. So lawful order must prevail in spite of mass confusions, and ignorance, as this is the saving grace to humaity.


Then I could move on to other great names in psychology as, Abram Maslow (1916-1972) Max Wertheimer (1880-1943) and their BS of the constructs of the human mind (to say the least), with only one intent, and that is to extract moneys form the gullible, as the definition of psychology is to “control humans” as stated in the reference “Fundamentals of Psychology”, Culkin and Perrotto, 1996.


Teachers buy into this psycho crap, as they don’t get a job unless they are trained in it or have a working knowledge, and they become “state reporters” of the “potential perpetrators” condemning as they would, and a child has not even reached the age of majority, but yet condemned by loaded questions.


The child says –AHH, what, isn’t this an honest world? (NO, not hardly my friend), but we learn to survive in the culture we are born in. Moreover, such truth in high schools are never spoken, but rather the focus is not in LAW where honest authority exist, but rather on big bucks, and honesty be damned, as they were taught, directly or indirectly, and no wonder why Enron went broke, taking all that were gullible, as with gangs. Society supports the structures of nonsense in “beliefs” over rational.


This is quite a rant, but I have done better, and I want changes to happen NOW, and not in 2,000 years. So I study and work hard in the forces (law and the courts) that I think will make a difference and I do not stand alone.


Public schools will train our children, I just hope we can live with these children after the psycho system finishes with them, and wonder why we are still in the dark ages.


In addition, people like Copy, high school text on formal logic (1948) was banned in the early 50’s and formal logic is banned in Oregon high schools. I wonder why? To protect the guilty no less. More over, may honest judges help a country that can think, and only a few survive intellectually to say so.


Don

[Fazor]

For now, I will take your word that corporate crime is the leader,
Just to clarify, I never meant to infer that fraud/corporate crime was the "leader", but it sounded in your first post like you were saying it was. I don't know where it ranks among most common crimes, I just wanted to point out that it is heavily investigated and riggorously prosecuted.

Also I pointed out the definition of a Tort because I thought you were saying that the "mens rea" was being used against students in Tort cases, which clearly it is not. Sometimes communication via text can lead to misunderstandings, I apologize if I read your post wrong.

Again though, if these surveys are being used against students, and questions are being formulated to trap students into certian answers, then I would like to see some evidence of this behavior. You gave the example of a question about thoughts on suicide, with "never" not being an answer. This was cited as proof that they were trapping students into answering that they have suicidal thoughts. Well then, why aren't all students, or even half, or even a quarter, being sent to the school guidance counsoler?

Anyway, sorry if I sound defensive. I'm not a huge defender of the public school system as it stands either, but these claims seem baseless.

[Dons]

I'm curious, guys. What percentage of children do you think get taken away from their parents who don't deserve it versus ones who do? Do you think there are actually a lot of kids who get taken away from parents who really do abuse them, who really don't take proper care of them, who really shouldn't be parents? How many versus the ones that in your inexpert opinion are unjustified?


You tell me, as of 2004, the last reports I know of, there were over 650,000 children in government care, coming and goings and raising in numbers, called foster homes, or “private contractors” that farm out children, and about 10% of those were under investigations of extreme frauds and child abuse, and this is only those children that fall under TPR (termination of parental rights). This does NOT include the hundreds of thousands of cases where parents “daily” fight for their children and family because of accusations with NO physical evidence by the state!


Look up CPS stats, national government figures, and correct me. The horror stories, and personal people I know of, and people that come into my office, that report CPS atrocities, is enough to gag a maggot, and the worst is not even told. As CPS, nation wide, has a “ban”, by law, on reporting other than the death of a child in CPS care, in one way or another.


NO—in juvenile cases the public is NOT allowed, nor reporters. There have been some mild changes by public protest and reports by high profile cases. The claim is to protect the innocent child, but yet atrocities happen daily under this cover, by the child “farms” by many names; and the legal red tape is awesome. Court appeals are all but guaranteed, but even that is held under cover. In addition, the cost is unbelievable for a defense against the state, and the poor are just left out, though no crime has been committed "of fact".

If a crime has been committed it is up to the DA to prosecute but exceptions are made where CPS is the accuser, is not charging the parent(s) by informing the DA to call a grand jury, but only the interest of the child to the state, and NOT that to the parents. AS by LAW, all children belong to the State in what they are born, and that is the jurisdiction by the courts. YES, your child is "owned" by the state, and what you have is parental rights to raise the child as the state see fitting. These rights can be recalled with the states disaproval of parenting, and NO crime needs to be comited. This is a fact of USA law.

I am certainly NOT saying there are valid cases of child abuse that need to be prosecuted. YOU BET and may the hammer of the law fall. However, the gate is so large on what constitutes child abuse, you can drive 20 mule teams of a hundred animals and wagons threw it, and have room to spare. There are even tax incentive (public and private) with over 6,000 bucks rebate to the State per-child on top of the 110,000 thousand to the state, signed into federal law (and other federal moneys) for every adoption upon TPR, plus SS moneys that are not taxable.

This is billions nationally, directly and indirectly to the states, and very LITTLE goes directly to the child(ren), most are left homeless even after the age of majority, as if you want to call 7 to 10 residences of the child a home of strangers, separated from its brothers and sisters. As nothing is more abusive than separating a child from it parent(s), as states commonly do.


If you have interest, you look it up, and study. I am not going to cross the line of “preaching” on this board that I think I have already crossed. I am interested in justice, people, and moneys are damned all to hell.


I will take cases to court where the time maters, not that I mind sharing as I can with others. It is a passionate work I do, emotions run high and deep, and I am to be the “cool one”—yeah right. Thank you for the time and the ink, I will return the favor.


Don

[publius]

I'm curious, guys. What percentage of children do you think get taken away from their parents who don't deserve it versus ones who do? Do you think there are actually a lot of kids who get taken away from parents who really do abuse them, who really don't take proper care of them, who really shouldn't be parents? How many versus the ones that in your inexpert opinion are unjustified?

Well, considering the pages of court cases I've been reading where the CPS (generic name for whatever the agency is actually called in any particular state) was charged with wrongful actions, and *lost*, including those were CPS agents were found to have committed perjury and other crimes, I'd say that number is pretty high. One is too much.

And, a very conservative reading of the numbers says that a child in foster care, where the child will be placed if removed from his natural home, is twice as likey to suffer abuse or neglect as the general population, I'd say removing a child from the home is a pretty high-risk thing, not to be taken lightly.

We may have to just agree to disagree here because from your above quote, I suspect our differences on this matter are quite fundamental. If you believe the state should have the power to decide who should or shouldn't be parents, and take children away based on that, then there's not much we can agree on.

Yep, in *my opinion*, I'll agree certain people have no business being parents. But in no way does my opinion, or yours, or that of any "expert" translate into the power of the state to decide who should be parents. That idea is quite repellent.

The state's power to intervene should only extend to the most severe cases where there is clear and present imminent physical danger to the child. Otherwise, the right of a parent to raise his child as he or she sees fit must be respected.

Freedom is the most important thing to me. It trumps everything. Yes, it more important that "the children". I choose freedom over safety. If that means some guilty go free, so be it. A small price to pay to prevent innocent from being jailed. And likewise, if that means some real child abuse must happen, so be it. A small price for liberty, indeed.

As some of the wise fellows who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for that liberty observed, the public is very willing to give up that freedom in moments of panic and alarm. And "child abuse" is one of those things that leads to such hysteria.

A more modern write, PJ O'Rourke put it that people would throw out the Bill of Rights for the missing children on the milk cartons, and that's why you need those unelected justices on that Supreme Court................


-Richard

[publius]

If a crime has been committed it is up to the DA to prosecute but exceptions are made where CPS is the accuser, is not charging the parent(s) by informing the DA to call a grand jury, but only the interest of the child to the state, and NOT that to the parents. AS by LAW, all children belong to the State in what they are born, and that is the jurisdiction by the courts. YES, your child is "owned" by the state, and what you have is parental rights to raise the child as the state see fitting. These rights can be recalled with the states disaproval of parenting, and NO crime needs to be comited. This is a fact of USA law.

Don

Don,

While I'm with you all the way in spirit, that is way overboard. The law does not say the state owns the children. Now, overzealous CPS and DSS types effectively see it that way (basically this is just a consequence of the nasty elitist tendencies of various "experts" who think they have the right to impose their notions of correct raising of children by force of law). But the courts, the higher federal courts at least, slap them down.

Lower courts (state courts, and low magistrates and such) will defer to the CPS crap, but when it gets to the higher courts, they usually preserve parental rights. The higher-up judges keep their wits and aren't about to throw out the Bill of Rights for "the children". Generally.

The outrage is the poor parents without the means and knowledge to properly fight it and get to the higher courts.

I've been reading up on many of these cases. One case in particular was a federal appeals ruling that the 4th Amendment applied to social workers. Yep, some CPS agents had the audacity to claim it didn't apply to them because "protecting the children" was more important. The appeals court took a very dim view of that claim.

And as I've been reading, CPS agents lie all the time, and are trained to do so, to intimidate parents into letting them in. They claim if you don't let me in and talk to your children *alone*, I'll get a court order to take your children away. That's absolute bunk, yet is done all the time. When it gets to court, such things are thrown out, but yet the poor parents who don't get it to court have no defense.

Your right to be present when you child is questioned is pretty absolute, except in extreme cases, but even then, you indeed have an absolute right to have *an attorney present* when your child is questioned if you can't be there.

One case I read had to do with a woman who was homeschooling her 12 year old daughter (these are frequent targets of CPS abuse, so much so the Home School Legal Defense group was founded to fight this). She refused to let the social worker in her home. The social worker goes and gets a cop to accompany her. No warrant was issued, the social worker simply got the cop as a means of intimidation.

The woman asks for a warrant, and the cops tells her he doesn't need no stinkin' warrant for a child abuse allegation and if she doesn't let him and the social worker in, he will force his way in. She lets them in. They interview the daughter alone, and conduct a partial strip search of the girl looking for signs of physical abuse.

The court took a dim view of that, thankfully, and the end result was the state paying that poor woman a substantial amount of damages. You can fight this if you have the resources.

-Richard

[publius]

Just to show how serious this crap can get, here's a rather shocking piece of boilerplate advice that Homeschool Legal Defense group gives to their members:


However, in some instances, social workers or police threaten to use force to come into a home. If you encounter a situation which escalates to this level, record the conversation if at all possible, but be sure to inform the police officer or social worker that you are doing this. If entry is going to be made under duress you should say and do the following: "I am closing my front door, but it is unlocked. I will not physically prevent you from entering, and I will not physically resist you in any way. But you do not have my permission to enter. If you open my door and enter, you do so without my consent, and I will seek legal action for an illegal entry."


That goes along with what I've been told many times. Know your rights, and don't let power intimidate you.

-Richard

[Dons]

You asked:


You gave the example of a question about thoughts on suicide, with "never" not being an answer. This was cited as proof that they were trapping students into answering that they have suicidal thoughts. Well then, why aren't all students, or even half, or even a quarter, being sent to the school guidance counsoler?


The answer in the rough and not a legal memo:


With some questions “Never” is posed but these are control questions where if “never” is marked, checked off, are control questions that are shown to be a “lie”. Therefore, by the answer of negating the obvious, it is shown that the student is being “fraudulent”, and therefore guilty. As in the suicide question, termination of life by medical necessity is NOT included. A child may feel that is an option---children DO think about stuff, but NOT trained to deal in an adult world of mental games. That takes experience, to say the least.


Also, remember that a file is kept on each student and it is NOT just one instant that a student is proclaimed a hazard to one self or others, but a repetition of so called “guilty behavior” or answers in interviews. Guilt is derived by a multitude of repetitious accusations; though there is not any proofs of wrongs. Some times a very minor behaviour problem starts the ball roling at full speed.


Once this “assumed level” is reached (that has NO standard) then CPS is called, and they act with the same attitude of negativity being fed all negativity in the case file.


It is a real ZOO out there. In fact, the child is harmless but naturally playing with his/her awareness as he/she grows and NO harm to any one. However, there is NO money in that natural growth (that is not a standard for young people) for the state, nor CPS, as possible convictions justify the CPS jobs, and concerns of the schoolteacher in social standing (and pay) are justified by accusations. NO direct evidence needed, but accumulative innuendoes.


However, to make maters even worse off—mandatory reporters in many states, if not all states, can do ONE-YEAR IN JAIL for NOT reporting--- even remotely--- possible dangers. So circle the wagons around the children and pick them off one at time, as better them than a teacher doing a year in jail “plus fines” and loss of career.


However, it is not over yet:


The psycho industry plays on fears and guilt worst than a catholic priest (Please forgive me but I needed an example) so they make the test and market it to the schools that they guarantee is 85 to 95% accurate, but these test companies “must” grade the test, so the test are emailed to the test companies to be graded. YES, this is FACTS of how the system works.


The test company then gives back “warnings”, the teacher must confirm or loose her job (possible year in jail and other fines). CPS is then called out with copies of the entire file, and Your child is then interview in person at school being accused–NOT RECORDED NOR with parental authority. The child craps his/her pants under the weight of adult intimidations, says the wrong things, or gets belligerent, and the parent is blamed, and the negativity is confirmed—but NO wrong doings. Then the child is taken into Juvie court and court supervision “until” a full investigation is held that TAKES at least 6 months for federal moneys to kick in (by law a child must be detained in CPS custody 6 months for the state to get paid by the feds).


All this time court appeals (72 hours for the first court hearing is not time enough to make a defense, but we live with it) and custody hearings are held--- The parent goes “ZOOKERS” with justified anger, that prove their own insanity, can not talk to their child nor see their child, save if they are in luck under “supervision”—and CAN NOT talk to the child about the past NOR the future or ALL visitations are canceled. YES is fact, and filmed and recorded at this time.


You get all this? It is a DAMN ZOO, and it is NOT over yet. A house of horrors to say the best.

Then after 6 months of legal cost, unbearable heart aches that NO ONE should suffer by the parent---CPS say—OH, we want to put your family back together again---


BUT that is not counting the “I’m a guilty parent” form that CPS forced on to the parent to sign, that proclaims the parent and child is in need of “therapy” for mental illness of what if NOT signed, CPS goes and gets a court order to do the same. This form is used as evidance against the parents and child later most often.


IT is NOT over YET! This is only in the first 6 months—NOT seeing the Child, Having the child told how bad his/her parent is, NOR having the child examined by an “independent” mental health worker (that only comes by court order and more court cost) as ALL the therapist that CPS used are paid by contract by the state! And guess what they say to keep the contract.


You got all this? ---AND it is NOT over YET, not even close, and the full story has not even been told.


Nevertheless, I think this answered your question.


Reality--- the child committed NO crime NOR the parent(s), just people being as they are living and existing in a strange and dangerous universe, but sometimes not being very smart, and mostly ignorant—as if that is a fault---then hang me high.

Most all these cases take at least 6 months of hard work to resolve, if not years, and the family is damged, sometimes beyound repair, as the stress is nasty--I mean nasty.



Don

[Cookie]

Hey don, if all that you say is true, and if I know of a child that is really being abused and have witnessed it with my own two eyes, what should I do?

[Moose]

Hey don, if all that you say is true, and if I know of a child that is really being abused and have witnessed it with my own two eyes, what should I do?

Are you a minor, Cookie?

You tell someone you trust who should know how to get the word out to the right people with the appropriate discression. If you don't feel comfortable talking to your family (it happens and it's okay,) you still have some options. If you have a doctor, dentist, or nurse as a family friend, they know what to do and how to do it. Same with school principals, teachers (although I understand you're homeschooled), police officers, judges, etc.

Anybody you trust who works with children at all will have had to think about how to handle this situation.

In Canada, we have a "Kids Help Line", a toll-free number where kids can call if they have problems and need help. They help teens, too. Your country might have an equivalent.

If you're in your majority, then you have a bit more responsibility to act on your shoulders. But it's the same basic thing. Generally speaking, your country's equivalent to Child Services needs to investigate and act to protect the child. The idea is to get the word out to them. They won't name names, so you shouldn't have to worry about blowback.

I understand this is not an easy thing to do, but this child needs your help. Most kids (particularly abused ones) are literally unable to get it for themselves, no matter how bad it gets.

Good luck, and we're all here for you if you need us.

[Maksutov]

I hope she's not in a 'hood where the "Stop Snitchin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin%27)'" campaign is in full swing.

Yet another reason to detest and oppose the noise called rap and whatever it is that rabbits do.

[Dr Nigel]

Yet another reason to detest and oppose ... whatever it is that rabbits do.

Rabbits?

Of course, Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes... (http://www.soulwax.co.uk/buffy/OnceMoreWithFeeling.html#bunnies)

[Moose]

It's no ordinary rabbit.

[Noclevername]

How long has it been since schools forbade students from having cough drops in class under the "zero judgement"... I mean "zero tolerance" drug policies? How many have called for school uniforms on the basis of "gang members wear colors, if we eliminate the colors there will be no gangs"? I even remember the old "No RPG's, they'll lead to Satanic Suicide" policies. Ditto rock music, videogames, etc. Mugaliens had it right, it's CYA on the teacher's and school's part pure and simple. Paranoid fear of "Oh, if something happens they'll blame me!", rather than concern for the child. And of course, no bizarro-world Dilbert-like authoritative ridiculousness would be complete without the requisite media feeding frenzy.

[Pinemarten]

Hey don, if all that you say is true, and if I know of a child that is really being abused and have witnessed it with my own two eyes, what should I do?

Yahoo has a link in their messenger service. Their homepage may have one too.

Edit: Sorry, it is MSN.ca messenger. It looks like a link to the Canadian Kids Help Phone.

[Gillianren]

How many have called for school uniforms on the basis of "gang members wear colors, if we eliminate the colors there will be no gangs"?

Having attended a school with a gang problem, I can assure you that the reasoning is more complicated--and actually, in fact, pretty valid. It reduced fights in our school if certain things known to be gang colours were forbidden. We didn't have uniforms, and of course we still had fights, but we had a lot fewer fights when gang members weren't allowed to wear their colours--be it bandanas, Raiders jackets, or whatever they'd chosen as a gang symbol at the time. And while I'm quite sure they got into gang fights in other locations, where those things were allowed, it made the school safer for the rest of us.

And I'll note, Dons and Publius, that neither of you quite answered my question. How many kids are taken out of abusive situations, ones where they're beaten, raped, or starved versus kids who just happen to be homeschooled? I would like hard statistics, but I'm aware that they wouldn't be easy to come by. I would also like evidence before the slandering of an entire profession. And, Publius, if the state doesn't have the right to take those kids away, does that mean it's just supposed to turn a blind eye as they die? (And before you tell me I'm exaggerating, we had a kid die recently here because CPS didn't do enough to take her away.)

[Fazor]

Let me interject real quick here Gillian, Don, and Publius. I'm seeing a lot of individual accounts of a particular situation offered as evidence of one thing or the other, but none of it is anywhere close to proving a case one way or the other against CPS. I too could offer some stories that support either side, depending on which ones I told (like a few of you, I spent some time working for Children's Services). If this was an argument in the ATM or CT area of the forums, it wouldn't last long :-P

Don't take this post the wrong way, I just am hoping we can avoid letting this become too much of an emotional, baseless, "i know a guy who..." kind of discussion.

Anyway, I had something to add to this thread, which I'll do in a new post if y'all don't mind standing by for a minute. I had typed the whole thing out already, but due to some technical difficulties (Illuminati try'n to suppress the truth?) it didn't post. Stay tuned! :)

[Pinemarten]

Hey don, if all that you say is true, and if I know of a child that is really being abused and have witnessed it with my own two eyes, what should I do?

Here is the website for Texas.
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Contact_Us/hotlines.asp


Edit: More links in this post:
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=982101&postcount=136

[Fazor]

Okay, attempt #2. I'm Fazor, and I'll be playing the role of Devil's Advocate this evening. Enjoy.

Deputies: Arrest Prevented Workplace Shooting (http://www.click2houston.com/news/13253674/detail.html?subid=22100412&qs=1;bp=t) is an article on an incident where the disgruntled suspect made calls to his employer saying he was going to kill him and a fellow employee. Scared, the employees threatened contacted the police. As they were talking to the officer, the suspect pulled up, saw the police, and attempted to flee. When he was arrested police found a shotgun and ammunition in his vehicle. He is charged with attempted aggravated assault.

Okay, this is decidedly different than the student-essay incident. But it does bring up some important questions. First, does anyone think this guy should *not* be charged with this crime? I definitely think it is a good charge (although would stop short of saying it definitely prevented a workplace shooting). Here's where it gets tough: when is it okay to charge someone for a crime that was never actually committed? Obviously you can't just wait for the crime to happen. But who gets to decide there's enough evidence to say that something was *going to* happen?

I found this story convenient for this discussion because it was on the far opposite end of the spectrum than what has been being discussed (that is, probably the last possible moment before someone was going to get hurt). So where do we draw the line?

[Fazor]

Machine-gun-posting time (sorry)

Here's some more fodder for discussion: Six-grader admits stabbing ducks (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/ducks.stabbed.ap/index.html)

WICHITA, Kansas (AP) -- A sixth-grader stabbed to death a mother duck and two ducklings that had nested near a school, distressing the other children and alarming officials who said the boy needs mental health treatment.

"By the same token, I think that kid obviously needs help," Meckenstock added. "My thought is, we need to look a little bit further and find out why somebody would have those tendencies."

Okay, both this and the (possible)workplace-shooter are much more clear cut (in my opinion) cases than the student essay case. So the theme seems to be "words versus action" with action being the trigger for corrective services to kick in. Problem is, if you wait for action, you'll not often be able to prevent something bad from happening. You'll be left with "we should have seen the signs" stories after the fact, but that doesn't help. Of course, as we've argued all along, no one knows exactly what the "signs" are.

[Matherly]

an incident where the disgruntled suspect made calls to his employer saying he was going to kill him and a fellow employee.

(Snip)

shotgun and ammunition in his vehicle. He is charged with attempted aggravated assault.

I'm not sure this is a proper analogy. In the US, assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault) is a threat followed by a show of force. A direct threat was made and a threatening posture was taken.

[Fazor]

Well I wanted to show it as a use of a commonly accepted form of preventative law enforcement (as opposed to reactionary, which does very little good for the victims). Like I said, this is the far end of the spectrum. I don't think there will be much or any argument for how the incident was handled. But it only takes a few steps of de-escalation to make this incident the same as the essay (instead of calling the people, writing a direct threat. then instead of a direct threat, change the names to something fictitious). That's the point, where in the middle should the line be drawn? Or do you think it's fine where it is (excluding how the essay incident was handled). Can we only act then if an actual assault (show of force) occurs? I'm not saying that opinion is wrong or right. Just curious to opinion.

[publius]

I'm seeing a lot of individual accounts of a particular situation offered as evidence of one thing or the other, but none of it is anywhere close to proving a case one way or the other against CPS.

Fazor,

Just to be clear, the stuff I was quoting comes from court cases against CPS. And these were not just the actions of CPS being overturned, but included later civil actions brought against them, where the plaintiffs won. So, indeed the accounts I posted met the civil burden of proof against CPS in a court of law. :) If you like, I'll dig and cite some of the case names.

Calabretta v. Floyd, 9th Cir. (1999) This one established that social workers and police had no qualified immunity from being sued for entering a home without a warrant "for the children".

H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So.2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992) was one that held that anonymous tips were *never* probable cause to enter homes.

Morris v. Dearborne (5th Cir. 1999) This one was about fradulent evidence being used to remove children from the home.

I'll give you some more if you like.

-Richard

[Gillianren]

I do see what you're saying, Fazor, and I quite agree that evidence would be nice. However, since the court cases in Washington State are recently and prominently ones based on neglecting to take children away from abusive parents wherein the children later died, and since we recently had a law passed based on that fact, I suggest that the problem isn't as universal as Publius's cases would seem to indicate. But I'm no expert, and I freely acknowledge that.

[Pinemarten]

This story may be relevent:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1088080916471_69/?hub=CTVNewsAt11


"Stanson is facing several charges, including: carrying a concealed weapon, possession of ammunition for a dangerous purpose, careless storage of a firearm, careless storage of ammunition, unauthorized presence of a firearm in a motor vehicle and unauthorized presence of ammunition in a motor vehicle.

He faces no charges related to his rampage plans."

[publius]

Here is the testimony of one the Home School legal fund laywers before Congress about this:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200305/200305022/CAPTA_Testimony.pdf

Read the part about strip searches for signs of abuse they do (all by intimidation, mind you -- people allow it because they think they have to) Read the part about "the child abuse industry". And especially read the part about how, in the old days, social workers assumed parents were innocent who were reported as abusers, but now they are trained to assume the parents are guilty.


Oh, about 80% of allegations of child abuse are unfounded. It's like other crimes of this nature. Many of the real ones go unreported, while many of reported ones are baseless.

As an example of a ridiculous charge, here's something that went to the NC state supreme court:

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/nc/200307160.asp

That started when a naked 2-yr old ran out of the house chasing a kitten. Some passerby saw that, and made a report of child abuse, resulting in the DSS coming in and doing its usual intimidation tactics to gain entry in the house. The family fought it and this was the result.


-Richard

[Gillianren]

Oh, about 80% of allegations of child abuse are unfounded. It's like other crimes of this nature. Many of the real ones go unreported, while many of reported ones are baseless.

I assume you have evidence to back up that statistic.

[publius]

Actually, I'm in favor of school uniforms myself. Well, reasonable ones. I've never had experience with gangs, and I hope I never do, but there are other reasons. Think back to your own school days. Remember the fads where some article of clothing became the "in" or "cool" thing to have, and if you didn't have it, you were ridiculed or "out". I remember shoes being one of those back around 5th grade. We all had to wear a certain brand of sneaker or something to be cool. And it changed all the time.

And I understand that's mild compared to what it's like today. (Think Paris Hilton and co in high school.)

That is just nonsense that gets in the way of the proper environment, not to mention the peer pressure on the kids whose parents can't afford to cater to the latest fashion whims. Uniforms (or some standard, reasonable dress code that all can meet) just nips that crap in the bud, and a lot of "Mommy, mommy, buy me, by me!" crap.

-Richard

[publius]

I assume you have evidence to back up that statistic.

Gillian,

If you'll read some of the links I post, you'll see some of the numbers, and they come from the CPS' own statistics. You can do it several ways.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_1_4.htm

CPS agencies investigate about 1 million cases per year. Of those they take action in 150,000 per year. 15/100 = 15%. 85% of investigations result in no action. Now, considering the case, which I've been trying to make about how agressive they are in these investigations, if they can only get something on 15%, that tells you "about 80%" are unfounded.

There is hysteria about child abuse in this country. When it comes to "the children" people loose all reason. There are advocates for various causes (the "do-gooders" I referred to before) who are constantly stirring up hysteria, putting out inflated numbers for whatever cause they advocate to try to get public attention. The media just egg it on.

5 bazillion children starve every year in the US. 60,000 children are abucted by Satanic cults for ritual abuse and human sacrifice -- and that 60,000 Satan victims claim was a real claim, mind you that was put out during the 80s.

There are people out there who want to convince us that awful, terrible things are going on all around us. The world is an awful place where bazillions of people meet some grizzly fate all the time. Murder, mayhem, rape, plundering and pillaging of all sorts is going on unbated. WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!! (call 1-800 and have your credit card ready).....

So, ol' Ethel and Fred hear all that breathless nonsense on the TV and get it in their heads their neigbors must be doing something awful. I have in my experience seen people let their imaginations run wild with suspicions based on the slightest little anomaly they see. It's amazing what a little suspicion and lack of information can lead to. People assume the worst. Add breathless hysteria spewed out by all these advocacy groups all the time, and you get what we have.

We have a system where Ethel and Fred's wild imagination causes them to make some anonymous phone call, and turn loose some overzealous investigation on their neighbors.

And when it's "the children", the normal checks on believing wild speculation just go right out the window all the more.

-Richard

[publius]

And here we go, horse's mouth of Pennsylvania, one of the first ones to come up:

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/Child/ChildAbuseNeglect/ChildAbuseAnnualRpts/2005ChildAbuseRpt/2005TablesCharts/003674783.htm

"Percentage of substantiated reports" is 19.2% in 2005, 19.6% in 2004. "About 80%" of reports were unsubstantiated, IOW. And if you look at the county by county breakdown, you'll see that counties with the lowest number of total reports usually had the higher rates of substantiation. People in those counties weren't so hysterical.

Our hearts, "oh, it's *children*" want to believe reports of abuse. But the reality is quite different. Things are nowhere as bad as they are purported to be.

-Richard

[publius]

I learned a lesson about people assuming the worst years ago back in school. It the 8th or 9th or grade. Some of my friend and I, during sort of a "free for all" thing during gym period used to sneak in the bathroom and engage in activity boys of that age do when they sneak around. It involved a little contraband (tobacco, not the more potent kind of today) plus some of the reading material you're supposed to be 18 to buy. :lol:

Well, one day, another student had something valuable (what I forget) stolen from a locker in that bathroom. Investigation revealed we were on the scene of the crime, and we were soon under being questioned in the principal's office. Separately, and at length. Well, we were all acting suspicious, big time, because we had something to hide, and all gave differing accounts of the innocent activitives we were actually engaged in. (That experience taught us to always have a boiler plate story ready in the future so we'd all sound alike. :lol: ).

Now, they all were convinced we were the thieves. But they couldn't find the stolen item(s) on us, or our lockers are anywhere. And boy did they search. And boy did they threaten. To this, I'm sure that principal thinks I stole whatever it was, and managed to cleverly hide it. The trouble was the real thief was able to get away because they were concentrating on us.

And we never did admit what we were really doing either. We did try to find out who really did it (so we could make him pay dearly for our trouble), but we never did.

There were several lessons I learned about human nature from that little episode. Act suspcious, and people assume you're guilty of the worst. Second, have a bolierplate story ready at all times..............:lol:

-Richard

[publius]

Here's another one:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1k75701071mg554/

79% of sexual abuse claims made against child care centers are unfounded.

And here is the saga of a family reported for child abuse by an angry real estate agent. The family rented the home, and the owner was going tos sell it. The agent was mad that the house wasn't as nice as he hoped, then got really mad when the mother wouldn't let him show the house on short notice.

http://sean.gleeson.us/2006/03/11/under-siege-1

And the end, she says they did they right thing, and admitted the report was false.

Note the source of the problem, there. *Anonymous reports*. The idea is to allow people to make reports without fear of reprisal from real criminals. But it also people to make maliciously false accusations without consequence. In a just world, that poor family should be able to sue that real estate agent for everything he was worth, and he should be criminally liable for making a false report as well. But he has complete immunity.

Note that they put that agents name and picture up. If he was innocent, he would've sued them. But, to do that, he opens himself up to discovery, and having to answer questions under oath, like "did you make the report". :)

Had that been me, after that, well I would be in trouble with the law. For real estate agent abuse, not child.

-Richard

-Richard

[Gillianren]

I learned a lesson about people assuming the worst years ago back in school.

I want you to evaluate this statement, then think about another one.

And as I've been reading, CPS agents lie all the time, and are trained to do so, to intimidate parents into letting them in.

Now. Is it possible that the negative experiences of some are colouring their opinions of all? Is it possible that some of the people doing the reporting are exaggerating their cases due to the emotional nature? And, of course, is it possible that there are people who claim that CPS took their kids away "for no reason" just as the parents of that poor, starved baby were prosecuted "for no reason"?

I am not saying there are no abuses. Make no mistake about that. In no small part, that's because CPS is a human endeavour trying to balance the good of too many parties at once, and that usually doesn't end well. And we will have to agree to disagree, because I weight the rights of children whose parents are mistreating them a little higher than the rights of parents who are mistreating their children.

And here's a fact you might not know. It is a common tactic in certain, shall we say, emotionally-troubled social circles to call CPS and report their teachers or counsellors. Now, CPS will always investigate these claims. I know, because my best friend's dad was investigated perhaps a month ago.

He's not abusing the kids. The kids are fine. His oldest stepdaughter is making a lot of very, very stupid mistakes with her life, but he's not really to blame for that one; her biological father encourages her to be stupid. However, the complaint was made, so they investigated--even though they knew the complaint to be malicious and groundless, because they felt it was better to waste their resources knowingly than to let children be endangered. Heck, he was investigated when my best friend was a kid--because her older half-sister called CPS one day when she was mad at him for divorcing her mother, remarrying, and having another child. They still had to investigate, though my best friend says that the social worker knew from the second they started talking that nothing was amiss in the household.

Apparently, my friend's dad has had students call CPS on him repeatedly, and he's hardly the only counselor at least in Ohio (where my information comes from) to have the problem. However, CPS doesn't play favorites. Surely that accounts for a fair number of those groundless reports, don't you think?

[mugaliens]

Gillianren, the issue isn't so much that CPS agents are out to wrongly accuse parents, but rather, the manipulative tactics they use to get parents to forfeit their reasonable right to privacy, and the fact that by so doing, sometimes agents see things which they believe indicate something far worse is going on when it's not, the grief it causes families when children are wrongly taken from the families, etc.

There was a rather well-known case about fifteen years ago, where three kids from an Oregon family were put in foster care because a school reported bruises on the back of a girl's legs. As it turns out, the girl was going through puberty, and hormonal changes can often result in serious bruising occurs even when the trauma is mild (as in a mild spanking).

The kids were in foster care for 2-1/2 years while this case was drug through the mud, and when it was done, the family was out tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees.

Why? Because some idiot CPS agent refused to let go even long after it was proven that there was no abuse (all three kids admitted being spanked, but all three denied any abuse). It didn't help that this occurred at a time when would-be "dogooders" and self-proclaimed "experts" posessing nothing more than a degree were claiming that children who're spanked suffer irreversable harm as a result.

But that's another controversy...

[Gillianren]

Frankly, by the time you hit puberty, I think you're too old for a spanking. Still, that isn't the point.

As I said, I agree that there are and have been abuses of the system. I just don't think they're as prevalent as is claimed by certain people who, it seems to me, have an animus toward the government to begin with.

[Dr Nigel]

Deputies: Arrest Prevented Workplace Shooting (http://www.click2houston.com/news/13253674/detail.html?subid=22100412&qs=1;bp=t) is an article on an incident where the disgruntled suspect made calls to his employer saying he was going to kill him and a fellow employee. Scared, the employees threatened contacted the police. As they were talking to the officer, the suspect pulled up, saw the police, and attempted to flee. When he was arrested police found a shotgun and ammunition in his vehicle. He is charged with attempted aggravated assault.

If he never even picked up the weapon, he is innocent of that charge, in my view. Maybe he could be charged with carrying an unlicensed firearm (oh, wait - do you have to license firearms in the US?); depending on the circumstances, it might be possible to charge him with carrying a concealed weapon (unless he has a "concealed carry" license). But, seriously, you have to let him, I don't know, actually attempt to assault someone to charge him with attempted assault.

If he had gone into the building carrying a loaded shotgun, then he should be arrested and charged.

I strenuously object to charging someone with a criminal offence that they haven't done yet (and actually might never do - 'cos, how can you tell? I mean really, how can you be sure?).

[Dr Nigel]

... Problem is, if you wait for action, you'll not often be able to prevent something bad from happening. You'll be left with "we should have seen the signs" stories after the fact, but that doesn't help. Of course, as we've argued all along, no one knows exactly what the "signs" are.

Well, yes, but when someone does something antisocial, there is evidence upon which you can base an assessment (either they need help, in the case of the kid stabbing ducks, or they need serious help that may need to be imposed, in the case of the VT student). In each of these two cases, there were actual actions upon which to base some response (the VT student is reported to have been stalking other students prior to bringing his gun to school).

In each case, there is the possibility that intervention could prevent some tragic occurence in the future. However, the potential prevention of something that may or may not occur should not form the basis for making decisions of this kind. If they do, you are taking your first steps towards an Orwellian dystopia.

The trouble is, you would have people (who, as we know, are all fallible) making decisions about what types of behaviour represent "signs" of future antisocial actions, and then deciding what those "signs" mean. Not only is this a very difficult area in which to get it right more than half the time, but it is so open to abuse by unscrupulous officials.

Ultimately, this kind of thinking could lead to having a "parenting test" before you let anyone raise kids, just to make sure that they'll be able to teach their kids to be responsible and caring members of society...

[astromark]

Well, yes, but when someone does something antisocial, there is evidence upon which you can base an assessment (either they need help, in the case of the kid stabbing ducks, or they need serious help that may need to be imposed, in the case of the VT student). In each of these two cases, there were actual actions upon which to base some response (the VT student is reported to have been stalking other students prior to bringing his gun to school).
The trouble is, you would have people (who, as we know, are all fallible) making decisions about what types of behavior represent "signs"

Ultimately, this kind of thinking could lead to having a "parenting test" before you let anyone raise kids, just to make sure that they'll be able to teach their kids to be responsible and caring members of society...



Yes to the thinking obove... My own input to this would revolve around the fact that we need to lift the awareness of all. Of the dangers of the loner in our society. We are tribal by nature and in isolation often fail to comprehend the real from the perceived. A well balanced individual is the result of interactions with others. By interactive experience do we learn the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. A community, family, or just friends.
How do you fix a broken society? Very carefully or not at all.
So, Smile. Say hullo to your neighbors. Be interactive or pay the price. It can be that simple.

[mugaliens]

But, seriously, you have to let him, I don't know, actually attempt to assault someone to charge him with attempted assault.

If he had gone into the building carrying a loaded shotgun, then he should be arrested and charged.

I strenuously object to charging someone with a criminal offence that they haven't done yet (and actually might never do - 'cos, how can you tell? I mean really, how can you be sure?).

I couldn't agree with you more, Nigel. Unfortunately, too many people saw the Cruise flick and believe that they can "reasonably predict" what someone would do.

When I lived in Washington, I carried a concealed weapon with me at all times. Does that mean that if someone felt threatened by me, for whatever reason, I would have been guilty of attempted assault just because I had means?

Of course not.

However, one could argue that the circumstances are slightly different in that the disgruntled worker also had motive (he was disgruntled), and on top of that, he'd actually threatened to kill someone.

But you're absolutely correct - that's still not attempted assault!

It is, however, the threat of assault, and fleeing from police. What I don't get is why prosecutors can't seem to be able to appropriately charge people these days. Are they that idiotic? They certainly look that way. Or are they gaming the system to get maximum punishment?

We have the highest incarceration rate of any country, yet our crime rates are still pretty up there. Point to be learned: it's not working, folks.

I strongly suspect that if the laws were reformed in this country, writen by technical writers, rather than lawyers, punishments very clearly laid out, and heavy fines for wrongful prosecution as a percentage of the prosecutor's pay (along with anyone else's pay), then the people in the legal system might actually start doing the right thing, instead of trying to game the system.

I also think we need to do away with the Neanderthal practice of rewarding prosecutors with advancement based upon how many cases they win, and instead enforce a merit-based system whereby judges rate prosecutors each and every trial on a scale of 1-10 based upon how well the prosecutor argued the case and stuck to the letter of the law. Naturally, that rating would have to be cast in secret to minimize reciprocity (scratch my back, I'll scratch yours), with review available only once a year (or not at all except by the ones making the promotion decision).

[Dr Nigel]

However, one could argue that the circumstances are slightly different in that the disgruntled worker also had motive (he was disgruntled), and on top of that, he'd actually threatened to kill someone.

But you're absolutely correct - that's still not attempted assault!

Yes, indeed. He made the threat. If he had then carried a loaded weapon into the building, that's when he should have been arrested. But carrying a loaded weapon in and of itself would not have been enough to warrant arrest, unless he was violating some other law.

He should certainly not have been arrested for deciding not to carry out his threat!

It is, however, the threat of assault, and fleeing from police.

In the UK, "threatening behaviour" is a separate offence, and is less serious than "assault".

...
I also think we need to do away with the Neanderthal practice of rewarding prosecutors with advancement based upon how many cases they win, and instead enforce a merit-based system whereby judges rate prosecutors each and every trial on a scale of 1-10 based upon how well the prosecutor argued the case and stuck to the letter of the law. Naturally, that rating would have to be cast in secret to minimize reciprocity (scratch my back, I'll scratch yours), with review available only once a year (or not at all except by the ones making the promotion decision).

Or, in the words of the song (http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/metallica/andjusticeforall.html#2):

"Seeking no truth / winning is all..."

[Dr Nigel]

... We are tribal by nature and in isolation often fail to comprehend the real from the perceived. A well balanced individual is the result of interactions with others. By interactive experience do we learn the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. A community, family, or just friends.
How do you fix a broken society? Very carefully or not at all.
So, Smile. Say hullo to your neighbors. Be interactive or pay the price. It can be that simple.

I'm inclined to agree with you. One tends to feel no sympathy for the stranger, but a significant sympathy for those with whom one interacts regularly.

[publius]

As I said, I agree that there are and have been abuses of the system. I just don't think they're as prevalent as is claimed by certain people who, it seems to me, have an animus toward the government to begin with.


To "animus towards goverment", I plead guilty without reservation. And I'm in pretty good company there. Little Tommy Jefferson, Jimmy Madison, and the boys who gave us the Bill of Rights. Read them ("Notes on the State of Virginia", by little Tommy, and the Federalist Papers, by Madison, et al being some stellar examples), and you know me, because it is their writing that pretty much formed my political beliefs.

"Animus towards government" was what they were all about, "necessary evil" being a rather famous way to put it as well. They realized pretty much how human nature makes "power corrupt, and absolute power corrupt absolutely".

When you give fallible men the power to use force, which is what government is all about, you'd better be careful.

And so I'm going to be forever suspicious of those given the power to use force to deprive the citizen of life, liberty, and property. They are wrong until they prove themselves right. The citizen is right until proven wrong.

I do not give agents of the state the benefit of the doubt (acting in their official capacity). I give the citizen the benefit of the doubt.

-Richard

[Gillianren]

I strongly suspect that if the laws were reformed in this country, writen by technical writers . . . .

See, I think this is a horrible idea. Unless you propose to give all those technical writers a grounding in existing law and law enforcement. Besides, not all politicians are lawyers, despite what you think.

And guys, instead of just complaining about the way the country is governed, why don't you run for office, since you can clearly do so much better? It's your right as an American citizen. (For those of you who are American citizens.)

Further, Publius, I don't appreciate being patronized. What you keep forgetting is that agents of the state are also citizens themselves. They are people, not mindless, faceless entities. They are not all evil. The system is flawed. However, I don't think Jefferson would have particularly approved of painting all the people working for it with the same brush. Aren't you yourself considering entire professions guilty with no benefit of the possbility of being proven innocent?

[publius]

Further, Publius, I don't appreciate being patronized. What you keep forgetting is that agents of the state are also citizens themselves. They are people, not mindless, faceless entities. They are not all evil. The system is flawed. However, I don't think Jefferson would have particularly approved of painting all the people working for it with the same brush. Aren't you yourself considering entire professions guilty with no benefit of the possbility of being proven innocent?


I was not trying to be patronizing, and if you thought so, I'm sorry. But I wasn't.

As far as Jefferson, et al, all I'll say is read them for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

If a profession is a private entity that has no power over me, that's one thing. Those "professions" that are part of the state, and have the power, to oh say, come in my house and search and seize, subpoena all sorts of personal information, freeze and seize my property and financial assests, etc, etc, are quite different.

-Richard

[publius]

As far the dangers of giving people power, and why should we always be suspicious and jealous, here is something I was trying to recall, and finally did. This is the famous Migram experiments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment


The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[4]



That little aspect of human nature is something one needs to afraid, very afraid of.

ETA:

And here is one I was not aware of, the Stanford Prison Experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Subjects were given "prisoner" and "guard" roles (the local police actually assisted in the experiment by doing mock arrests of the "prisoner" subjects to further give the prisoner subjects the sense it was real. One can debate whether the real police should do things like this).

Results were the "guards" became run-amok sadistic in their treatment of the prisoners.

These experiments show the very dark side of human nature, when "wonderful, ordinary" people become agents of authority.

-Richard

[Dr Nigel]

Further, Publius, I don't appreciate being patronized. What you keep forgetting is that agents of the state are also citizens themselves. They are people, not mindless, faceless entities. They are not all evil. The system is flawed. However, I don't think Jefferson would have particularly approved of painting all the people working for it with the same brush. Aren't you yourself considering entire professions guilty with no benefit of the possbility of being proven innocent?

Well, Gillian, whether he was patronising or not, he didn't claim there was no possibility of proving innocence. He said They are wrong until they prove themselves right

Which, given the nature of power and the powers handed to these people, seems to me to be a healthy attitude. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Given how easy it is to fool all of the people some of the time, this results in a dangerous set-up.

Oops. Bit of politics there. I'll stop.

[mugaliens]

Well, that's what happens when you put someone in a certain level of authority before they've been brought up through that system to learn the checks and balances of that authority over the years.

There's a reason it takes 18 years before an Air Force officer reaches the rank of squadron commander, and has had to responsibly hold the rank of scheduler, flight commander, shop chief, perhaps a staff position, Standardization and Evaluations officer, executive officer, and perhaps Chief of Staff before he's allowed to become a squadron commander.

It's both to weed out the bad ones, as well as to train the good ones in how to appropriately manage that level of authority.

You can't take someone who's never been through the pipeline and expect them to succeed, unless their father or mentor had been an extraordinary trainer since they were very young (as has occasionally, but exceedingly rarely, happened throughout history).

[publius]

Another thing I recall that is somewhat related to this, ie "good people doing bad things" is the so-called Bystander Effect. In this case it is not so much doing bad things, but not doing the right thing, helping a victim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

We're all aware of various publicized cases where people just stood around while someone was being brutally attacked and possibly murdered. The above is how that works.

And individual *alone* will generally try to do something to help. Increase the number of people and individuals are less and less likely to act.

One reason is simple, they figure someone else will do something and they don't have to. But there's more to it than that. One is people look to the group to decide what to do (ie look to the leader, or authority). So everyone sorts of stands around waiting for everybody else to do something.

Another is fear of loosing face, or doing something stupid in front of a "superior helper". And sometimes with good reason. I remember a discussion about this one where someone described it. There was an accident where a pedestrian was hit by a car, and was severely injured. The guy calls 911 on his cellphone, then goes over to the victim. She's in severe pain and crying, and he holds her head his lap.

An MD happens upon the scene, takes charge, and orders him "get away from her, you don't know what you're doing!" That made him quite angry, and I've seen similiar "take charge types" who treat people like dirt. It's one thing to nicely tell the guy, "I'm a doctor, and I'll take over, please give me room". Quite another to get excited and berate someone.

ETA: The Bystander Effect can generally be broken by *looking someone in the eyes" and asking for help. That puts the onus right on that individual to act, and is usually sucessful in breaking the "group spell". And generally, once *one person* does something, the others then join in.

Looking in the eyes is a big thing, pyschologically. If you read about that prison experiment, they had the guards wear sunglasses, so they wouldn't feel the weight of the prisoners looking them in the eyes. That is very important way to prevent people from running amok, and something dictators and the like, if only instinctively, know they must not allow.

-Richard

[publius]

I'll encourage you all to read up on Milgram's Experiment and the ramifications. It is most fascinating.

It caused a firestorm at the time (as I'm sure the Stanford Prison one did as well) about the ethics of pyschological expermiments on human subjects. The result was stricter guidelines which have stymied efforts to repeat it.

A good question is what really bothered people. Was it the experimental technique itself (inflicting strong emotional distress in the subjects)? Or it was it the disturbing *results* of that experiments where 2/3 of the subjects, on orders from authority, would inflict lethal electric shocks on screaming victims?

Methinks it was as much the latter as the former. It is very disturbing indeed.

Again, read up on this. Milgram went on to variations of it, looking for different things. Are men and women and different? Apparently not, but women show higher levels of distress when they do it. And one even found women were slightly more likely to comply, but in general, they are the same.

The "prestige level" of the authority has a strong effect as well. People are less likely to follow the orders of a "nobody". And "immediacy" of victim vs authority has an effect as well. The closer they are to the victim, and the farther from the authority, the less they comply. Interestingly, when the authority figure was giving the orders over a telephone, many times the subjects would just pretend to give the shocks, and not really do it.

However, still 40% of the subjects would force the victim's arm down on the "shock plate" with that victim screaming in pain.

And maybe I shouldn't mention this -- but a similiar study done in another country (you can find out which -- one with a recent history of totalitarianism) found an 85% compliance rate.

This stuff is most disturbing, indeed. And definitely why one needs to be very careful with authority......

-Richard

[publius]

Here is a little 8 min documentary on the Stanford Prison experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4PrmqvYO94&mode=related&search=

Watch how a bunch of middle class nice boys (a bit long-haired for my taste, but that was the 70s :lol:) turn into sadistic prison guards. And note how the prisoner student became utterly submissive. One even went on a hunger strike.

This thing was supposed to go for 2 weeks, but they had to stop it after 6 days, so out of hand it was getting. In those 6 days, several of the prisoners had to be removed because of severe psychological distress. One developed a psychosomatic rash.

And note of interest the diary of one of the guards. One day 1, it was fun and games, he was trying to not to laugh. By day 5, he was utterly in his role, "I'm harassing (prisoner #) 417 because I just don't like him".

These things are quite shocking windows in the "evil that men do", and how easy it can happen.

-Richard

[HenrikOlsen]

Hey don, if all that you say is true, and if I know of a child that is really being abused and have witnessed it with my own two eyes, what should I do?
Pinemarten already posted a link for Texas, so I'm posting more general ones, in case it's relevant for people in other states who find this thread by searching.

There's a list of hotlines here (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/hotlines.html).

If it's neglect, check this list to see if one of these organisations (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/ca_neglect.html#org) is nearby,
if it's physical abuse check these (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/ca_physical.html#org),
if it's sexual abuse check these (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/child_sexual_abuse.html#org).

Saying "Someone ought to do something about this..." is easy, adding the corollary "and that someone is me." is the mark of adulthood more than any number on a birth certificate and it sounds like you're getting here fast.

For counter arguments to publius's selective searching, the whole site is worth reading, but it's very tough reading as it's about cases of real abuse rather that the widely publicized blunders publius rolls out, so reader beware.

[mugaliens]

Publius, you're dead on accurate, as I stated before. That's what untrained and unregulated humans will do when thrust into those positions.

That's also why an often unwritten series of milestones exists before anyone is ever allowed to be put in that sort of position. In the last 100 years, those milestones have become increasingly codified, at least throughout modern society, such that we no longer hear of drawing and quartering of innocent women and children as a means of getting the other prisoners to talk...

[publius]

That's what untrained and unregulated humans will do when thrust into those positions.



Indeed. And it's important to understand exactly how that happens. Although we don't like to admit it, lurking within everyone are these sadistic traits that love to humilate and degrade our fellow man. In that Stanford experiment, they characterized a full 30% of the guard's behavior as "genuinely sadistic". They easily come out when given power over your fellow man. It's pretty much inborn. All you have to do is watch children who start picking on and bullying some other child they don't like.

One of the main ways this dark side comes out is abdication (or "diffusion") of the sense of personal responsibility. They are just an arm of the authority (ie the govt, the leader, the group) and are not personally repsonsible. "Just following orders", IOW.

And so, you want to make it perfectly clear that everyone will be personally accountable for his actions, no matter what.

It's important to appreciate that. The Stanford experiment has been used by real guards and similiar charged with abuse of prisoners to argue they *were not* responsible for their actions. It's not their fault because they're just doing what human nature does. And that is the exact opposite of what is to be learned from this. They do it because of that very "I'm not really responsible" thinking.

-Richard

[Ilya]

Ultimately, this kind of thinking could lead to having a "parenting test" before you let anyone raise kids, just to make sure that they'll be able to teach their kids to be responsible and caring members of society...
Which I always believed SHOULD be the case. To raise dogs, you must have a license, and to get a license you must demonstrate certain minimal knowledge about raising dogs. To raise humans, you need demonstrate nothing. To me, the notion that the highest responsibility most people will ever undertake is an "inalienable right" is just nuts.

I know I am in a small minority here, but that does not make me wrong.

Although the kind of things I think should be in "parenting license test" are not subjective psychological evaluations, but practical knowledge of child-rearing tasks, which is more objective.

[publius]

Well, first of all, being the minority indeed does not make you wrong. It's the position itself that is either right or wrong, of course. Indeed, being in the minority when the majority has run amok is sort what I'm all about protecting. The greatest measure of courage is to be able to stand firm against the mob. That is very, very hard to do.

Second, about a license to raise dogs. Do you mean a license for a commerical breeding operation or kennel, etc? I don't know of any laws that require a license for a family pet. And I know of rules which prohibit pets in various places. And I know of a local attempt by a city council to tax pets, which was quickly shot down, though. :)

That aside, let's run with this idea of requiring a license to have children, where some state-run authority must give permission to have children. We pass the law tomorrow.

Now, first of all, would that law just apply to new parents, or would it retroactively apply to all parents? Or would there be some cut-off age. If you have children under X years of age now, you must submit to licensing? And if so, what do we do with the ones who fail their licensing exam? Do we take the children away? If so, where do we put them?

But for the sake of argument, let's grandfather in all the existing parents for their existing children.

So any citizen who wishes to have any new children must apply for state approval. How do this work? We're going to need a big agency to process all the requests, with lots of manpower and tax money required. And, of course, what qualifications will the judges of who is fit to be parents be required to have? Do we codify the requirements directly into the law, or do we give the agency a lot of leeway to set those guidelines?

And then, how do we handle those who have children without first getting approval. What happens if someone gets accidently pregnant without approval? Do we terminate the pregnancy, or do we allow it to come to term, then take away the child once it is born? And if so, what do with the child?

Should it be a crime to get pregnant (or impregnate someone) without a license? Or will this just be some sort of "civil matter" where someone is fined.

No matter what the answer there, it's obvious we're going to have to start policing and regulating the activity that results in pregnancy. One solution would to require mandatory birth control. That would certainly get the war of the sexes riled up big time, so to be on the safe side, we'd to go after men as well as women somehow, so they wouldn't say women were bearing the brunt of the burden.

Of course we could just sterilize. Once someone reached a certain age, they'd have to take the parenting test. If they failed, we'd just sterilize them and wouldn't have to worry about keeping the birth control up.

Or I'm sure modern electronic surveillence techniques could be used to great advantage. We could implant devices that can detect sexual arousal and signal the authorities if any reproductive activity was about to take place, and they could speed to the scene and interrupt the deed, and make any necessary arrests.

But then, what about non-procreative activities that would cause the alarm to go off. Perhaps if a bit of pressure built up, one could call the authorities and inform them that such activity needed to take place, and they could approve, provided you had proof that it was not going to result in procreation.

And we'll have to make good use of the health care system to help us out, making sure doctors keep us informed that everyone is complying with whatever birth control schemes we devise.

And then there are going to be those troublemakers who just refuse to comply, and we're going to have go after them hard and make examples out of them. Since we'll be enlisting the doctors, women with unlicensed pregnancies will be going underground and not seeking medical care. And their men will be doing similiar things. So we'll have to keep a sharp eye out for those who attempt to go underground and have children in secret. Yep, we'll make some stark examples out of them when we catch 'em.

The Chinese goverment has lot of experience in this latter area which we could put to good use.

And finally, there's a big racial/ethnic/reliogious component to this as well. We're very sensitive to things like that, and it may turn out that blind testing procedures result in some racial groups getting to have more children than others, which will lend itself to charges of racism and discrimination.

So the best thing to prevent that will be racial quotas based on some scheme to make sure it's fair, and no one race or whatever group gets to have more children that others. And that will mean some qualified parents will have to be rejected. And what if some group still doesn't meet the requirements then. We may have to relax the standards there to ensure fairness. But we'll keep a close eye on them just to be sure.

And I'm sure we'll want a license updating procedure, and close monitoring of licensed parents, so we'll have to have an inspection program where the home environment is monitored carefully.

-Richard

[BigDon]

On the "thought crime" subject, I find I've had to defend the unlovely a bunch of times in the past three years or so. But here is a twisted one.

In the East Bay a librarian had a major freakout when she caught this homeless weiniehead looking at "illegal content" on one of the libraries PCs. Every prosecutor with political aspirations jumped on this one. With one going so far as to say he'd "give the guy 25 years!" on camera. And some of the folks I gossip with down at the corner store were all in agreement.

But I had to say something, being me and all. "25 years" for pictures he didn't take or pay to have done? And if just looking at them were a crime, wouldn't the librarian be guilty if she saw them too? Maybe not to the same extent but still she saw them. If I accidently kill someone I'm still in trouble, not as much as a murderer, but around here 3 to 5 years is average depending on the amount of negligence.

The whole thing was a major storm in a teacup for about a week around here. But somebody did finally decide the case was unprosicutable for a bunch of reasons. Not the least of which was her word aganst his. That and around here a first offense for having "illegal content" downloaded on your computer is only a high end misdemeanor. (Serious felony the second time they catch you though) Made me think of the whole "thought crime" issue.
In the last two years several politicians have been trying to use the "protect the children" issue as a platform for grand standing.

I hate having to bring up law and logic into these messy subjects. Makes me look like I'm on the bad guys side, instead of being against bad law enforcement.

[publius]

I hate having to bring up law and logic into these messy subjects. Makes me look like I'm on the bad guys side, instead of being against bad law enforcement.

I know, just think of all the good that could be done, all the lives that could be saved if it weren't for those pesky things like the Bill of Rights.

And about being on the bad guys' side, remember it's the *accused*, or alledged bad guy until the good guys come up with proof that the guy was indeed bad. That can get in the way of public as well, too.

No one has yet done this here, which speaks of well of the logic of the membership here, but generally, when there's a witch hunt, you get accused of being a witch yourself if you defend any of the accused witches.


-Richard

[Doodler]

On the "thought crime" subject, I find I've had to defend the unlovely a bunch of times in the past three years or so. But here is a twisted one.

In the East Bay a librarian had a major freakout when she caught this homeless weiniehead looking at "illegal content" on one of the libraries PCs. Every prosecutor with political aspirations jumped on this one. With one going so far as to say he'd "give the guy 25 years!" on camera. And some of the folks I gossip with down at the corner store were all in agreement.

But I had to say something, being me and all. "25 years" for pictures he didn't take or pay to have done? And if just looking at them were a crime, wouldn't the librarian be guilty if she saw them too? Maybe not to the same extent but still she saw them. If I accidently kill someone I'm still in trouble, not as much as a murderer, but around here 3 to 5 years is average depending on the amount of negligence.

The whole thing was a major storm in a teacup for about a week around here. But somebody did finally decide the case was unprosicutable for a bunch of reasons. Not the least of which was her word aganst his. That and around here a first offense for having "illegal content" downloaded on your computer is only a high end misdemeanor. (Serious felony the second time they catch you though) Made me think of the whole "thought crime" issue.
In the last two years several politicians have been trying to use the "protect the children" issue as a platform for grand standing.

I hate having to bring up law and logic into these messy subjects. Makes me look like I'm on the bad guys side, instead of being against bad law enforcement.

Its easy to be fair to the good guys, but you don't understand what fairness is till you've defended someone who actually needs it.

[Maksutov]

Which I always believed SHOULD be the case. To raise dogs, you must have a license, and to get a license you must demonstrate certain minimal knowledge about raising dogs. To raise humans, you need demonstrate nothing. To me, the notion that the highest responsibility most people will ever undertake is an "inalienable right" is just nuts.

I know I am in a small minority here, but that does not make me wrong.

Although the kind of things I think should be in "parenting license test" are not subjective psychological evaluations, but practical knowledge of child-rearing tasks, which is more objective.Agreed. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=972684&postcount=10)

[Bogie]

I know, just think of all the good that could be done, all the lives that could be saved if it weren't for those pesky things like the Bill of Rights.

And about being on the bad guys' side, remember it's the *accused*, or alledged bad guy until the good guys come up with proof that the guy was indeed bad. That can get in the way of public as well, too.

No one has yet done this here, which speaks of well of the logic of the membership here, but generally, when there's a witch hunt, you get accused of being a witch yourself if you defend any of the accused witches.


-Richard
It is hard to argue that the "accused" and "alleged" bad guy is in fact a bad guy until it is proved. It is very troubling that our system does not protect the innocent like it should. The examples on this thread of abuse of authority should be emphasized and our “authority” figures need to be held to the highest standards.

But once it is proved, then there is a recidivism factor that is astonishing. There really are bad guys out there.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm)

The innocent are convicted for a very small percentage of the crimes. And it is a shame on society when it happens, but the criminal element is responsible for a very high percentage of the crimes, lol. Once we know who they are, shouldn’t society be warned by the fact that they are already criminals? Leniency the first time around just makes the guilty bad guy types laugh at the system. Let the criminal serve the time. Keep track of them afterward. If they are rehabilitated and have been law abiding citizens for long enough, several years minimum, then honor them for changing their lives. Otherwise, we should keep our eyes on them just for the protection of the society that they have already abused.

[Maksutov]

[edit]But once it is proved, then there is a recidivism factor that is astonishing. There really are bad guys out there....Sometimes their identity is quite surprising. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/06/tornadoes.looting.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

[Dr Nigel]

Ilya, Publius and Maksutov:

On the "parent license" thing, just taking the idea and running with it...

I reckon it would need to be an annual test, phased in gradually (so that no pre-existing parents need to take it at the time it is passed into law). Failure would result in mandatory remedial training and the opportunity of a retest. Only repeated failure should result in taking the kids away.

If someone becomes inadvertantly pregnant, there's about 7 months for both parents to take the training and the test before the birth (hey, just extending the remit of those Lamarze (sp?) classes).

It would need to cover not only practical items, but also a certain amount of child-parent psychology. In the UK, there is a TV reality show called "Supernanny", in which the eponymous character is brought in to deal with "problem" children. Almost invariably, the child's behaviour is a consequence of the parent rewarding negative behaviour, failing to apply consistent rules, and making idle threats. You see the same kind of thing in supermarkets and shops in Britain: the child is frequently in control of the parent, not the other way around.

The training course would have the added benefit of giving prospective parents a bit of confidence about what they are getting into, too.

[Moose]

In the UK, there is a TV reality show called "Supernanny", in which the eponymous character is brought in to deal with "problem" children.

I watched that a couple of times while visiting my folks. (We actually do get it in Canada. My mom loves it.) I've referred to her as "Nanny Godzilla" since I first saw her physically intimidate a parent.

The mom (who definitely needed the help) had been cornered against the kitchen countertop. She was just about ready to climb it. Nanny Godzilla was right into her space until the mom agreed (totally unwillingly) to stop doing the specific bad-parenting thing she'd been doing.

[Ilya]

On the "parent license" thing, just taking the idea and running with it...

I reckon it would need to be an annual test, phased in gradually (so that no pre-existing parents need to take it at the time it is passed into law). Failure would result in mandatory remedial training and the opportunity of a retest. Only repeated failure should result in taking the kids away.

If someone becomes inadvertantly pregnant, there's about 7 months for both parents to take the training and the test before the birth (hey, just extending the remit of those Lamarze (sp?) classes).

It would need to cover not only practical items, but also a certain amount of child-parent psychology. In the UK, there is a TV reality show called "Supernanny", in which the eponymous character is brought in to deal with "problem" children. Almost invariably, the child's behaviour is a consequence of the parent rewarding negative behaviour, failing to apply consistent rules, and making idle threats. You see the same kind of thing in supermarkets and shops in Britain: the child is frequently in control of the parent, not the other way around.

The training course would have the added benefit of giving prospective parents a bit of confidence about what they are getting into, too.

More or less what I have in mind, yes. Also, I think a lot of those things should be taught in schools to teenagers.

Anyone with a modicum of interest in their child's welfare would find time to learn, and pass this kind of test -- and someone so selfish or immature as to neglect minimal parental training really SHOULD NOT be allowed to raise children! Nor should someone who genuinely wishes to care for their children, but is so mentally retarded that they are incapable of it. And yes, I am aware thar SOME mentally retarded parents, with very hard work, manage to raise children, but the onus should be on them to prove they can do it -- just like on non-retarted parents.

And to answer Publis' question -- yes, I think the test should be standard, codified into law, and test only quantitatively measurable attributes, like "Your address is here. The hospital is here. Here is your work schedule. Here is the bus schedule. Plan a bus route which will get you and your child to the hospital without cutting into your work time. You have ten minutes." I agree that making the test subjective, with leeway to people administering it is a recipie for disaster.

[HenrikOlsen]

And to answer Publis' question -- yes, I think the test should be standard, codified into law, and test only quantitatively measurable attributes, like "Your address is here. The hospital is here. Here is your work schedule. Here is the bus schedule. Plan a bus route which will get you and your child to the hospital without cutting into your work time. You have ten minutes." I agree that making the test subjective, with leeway to people administering it is a recipie for disaster.
Would "The child is more important than the work, so it's the next bus that goes." be a passing answer?

[Ilya]

No. First, more likely than not, next bus goes in a wrong direction. Second, I would not include any trick questions. Come on, we are talking minimal standards of parenting!

[Bogie]

Sometimes their identity is quite surprising. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/06/tornadoes.looting.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)Yes it is often surprising where the criminal mind lurks, even in uniform. But remember, they are only "accused" and "alleged" bad guys who are being held re. the link you gave me. They don't become bad guys until they are convicted. That was the point that publius made and that I supported. But I went on to make the point that there are bad guys out there. Once we know who they are we should be more careful. They should serve the time and should be kept track of, unlike the rest of us who should be left unhassled until there is cause.

[Moose]

And to answer Publis' question -- yes, I think the test should be standard, codified into law, and test only quantitatively measurable attributes, like "Your address is here. The hospital is here. Here is your work schedule. Here is the bus schedule. Plan a bus route which will get you and your child to the hospital without cutting into your work time. You have ten minutes." I agree that making the test subjective, with leeway to people administering it is a recipie for disaster.

This is a hypothetical question of an entire class of such questions that would irritate me to no end (and would quite probably be the straw that finally offended me in a situation where I'd already have my back up at least somewhat.)

My answer would be a very cold: "A two minute email solves the work issue, as I'm salaried (government), have non-retarded bosses, and have time built into my contract for family/personal emergencies such as this. Next, my car goes to the hospital (much) faster than any bus could or would (assuming there was a bus route in my region that didn't have the word "School" on it), and I don't require transfers. Problem solved. Next question."

What if I were the King of all Londinia and wore a shiny hat. What "might be" is irrelevant. How you cope with "what is" is all that matters.

[mugaliens]

See, I think this is a horrible idea. Unless you propose to give all those technical writers a grounding in existing law and law enforcement. Besides, not all politicians are lawyers, despite what you think.

Technical writers do not invent what they write. They simply take the garbled junk that others produce and clean it up so that it takes up minimal paper and is straightforward.

And guys, instead of just complaining about the way the country is governed, why don't you run for office, since you can clearly do so much better? It's your right as an American citizen. (For those of you who are American citizens.)

I've never get elected - I'm too opinionated. I'd wrather exercise my technical writing skils via letters to my representatives and exercise my right to vote - also my right as an American citizen.

For example, my last letter to my representative said this:

Dear Honorable Umptyscrunch:

I did not vote for you last election, and I wanted to let you know the reason why. It's because shortly before the election, I sent you a letter describing a serious issue, and my informed opinion about the issue, formed during my 20 years of experience in that field. Instead of replying in a manner which indicated you'd even read my letter, I received a canned letter and a statement of your position on the issue, which contained absolutely nothing addressing any of the issues I raised.

May we please try this again? I've re-enclosed my letter and respectfully ask that you read it this time.

Sincerely,

Mugaliens

Er, ignore the rest, as I see now that it was directed at Publius, not me.

Further, Publius, I don't appreciate being patronized.

:question:

What you keep forgetting is that agents of the state are also citizens themselves. They are people, not mindless, faceless entities. They are not all evil. The system is flawed. However, I don't think Jefferson would have particularly approved of painting all the people working for it with the same brush. Aren't you yourself considering entire professions guilty with no benefit of the possbility of being proven innocent?

I think your statement is rather ironic considering who I work for...

[Ilya]

My answer would be a very cold: "A two minute email solves the work issue, as I'm salaried (government), have non-retarded bosses, and have time built into my contract for family/personal emergencies such as this. Next, my car goes to the hospital (much) faster than any bus could or would (assuming there was a bus route in my region that didn't have the word "School" on it), and I don't require transfers. Problem solved. Next question."

First, the way I envision it, this test should be offered when you are about 16, so by the time you are a government employee and have a car, it's long behind you, assuming you have an ounce of sense. Second, a lot of people a) do not have cars, b) have retarded bosses, and c) I daresay there is a correlation (although not causation) between these conditions and bad parenting.

This exchange is likely to degenerate very quickly (not to mention being off-topic), so this is my last post on this matter.

[Moose]

assuming you have an ounce of sense.

:D I'm a hair short of 34, and one of the reasons I'm a bachelor is that I don't consider myself ready (financially or in terms of skills) to take care of a child. It's not something I care to jump into unprepared (or uninterested). I'm better suited than I was (thanks to a bit of experience with my goddaughter and the substitute teaching), but I don't consider myself there yet.

Ounce of sense? You tell me. ;)

[Ilya]

Ounce of sense? You tell me. ;)

Sounds like you have plenty. Probably even had plenty when you were 16.

[SeanF]

:D I'm a hair short of 34, and one of the reasons I'm a bachelor is that I don't consider myself ready (financially or in terms of skills) to take care of a child.
Hmmm. Do you think that remaining a bachelor automatically causes you to remain childless, or do you think that giving up your bachelor status would automatically make you a father? :think:

Just kidding. Actually, I commend you on your foresightedness. Would that there were more like you in the world today.

[mugaliens]

Licensing parents? Do chimp parents need a license? Ants? Fungus?

Give me a break... Any country mad enough to go this route is one I'm NOT living in.

[Moose]

Hmmm. Do you think that remaining a bachelor automatically causes you to remain childless, or do you think that giving up your bachelor status would automatically make you a father? :think:

Neither actually. You're confusing cause and effect. Or you would be if you were being serious.

My desire to remain childless (pending software upgrades and financial stability) is what caused me to remain a bachelor. It wasn't lack of opportunity.

Just kidding. Actually, I commend you on your foresightedness. Would that there were more like you in the world today.

I know. I'd advocate "being like me" to be mandatory by law, but I think that might bring my resale value down a little.

[Gillianren]

Just so we all know, I didn't abandon this conversation; I was having internet issues. And it's "lamaze."

I'm in favour of parenting licenses, too. I daresay, as I've mentioned before and has been ignored, that we are dealing with a very selective sample when we talk about abuses within the system. Sure. They happen. However, I personally think that, more often than not, the children are best served by CPS's interference. The parents may not be, but if they're hurting their children, I don't much care.

Anyone who works in the system, even as tangentially as my mother, has seen some awful, awful abuses--both to children and others, not to the system. (Yes, probably they've seen some to the system, too.) I think the overzealousness of some may stem from times they felt their hands were tied because they couldn't interfere when it was needed. And, of course, the overzealousness of others comes from the fact that they shouldn't be working there at all; that's always the case in any profession.

Children can't protect themselves. Especially very young children. Do you expect two-year-olds to be able to stop their parents from scalding them with boiling water on purpose, or do you want to empower someone to protect those children? Or can you think of another choice?

[Ilya]

Licensing parents? Do chimp parents need a license? Ants? Fungus?
I attract your attention to the number of chimp, ant and fungus babies which end up dead.

[SeanF]

I daresay, as I've mentioned before and has been ignored, that we are dealing with a very selective sample when we talk about abuses within the system.
Don't you think we're dealing with a very selective sample when we talk about parents abusing children, too?

However, I personally think that, more often than not, the children are best served by CPS's interference.
You're probably right about this, but (in my opinion) "more often than not" is far too low a bar, given the potential dangers. It's tantamount to judging the criminal court system based on if those convicted are actually guilty "more often than not." It's got to be true virtually all the time - in fact, I'd say that moreso in this situation than in the criminal court system.

Children can't protect themselves. Especially very young children. Do you expect two-year-olds to be able to stop their parents from scalding them with boiling water on purpose, or do you want to empower someone to protect those children? Or can you think of another choice?
I want society to make it quite clear that intentionally scalding children with boiling water is beyond the pale. Anybody caught doing something like that ought to have their fingernails removed with rusty pliers.

The problems start when you get to pro-actively interfering in every family...

[Fazor]

The problems start when you get to pro-actively interfering in every family...
Well, we're very far off from this. I don't know a single family personally that has had CPS step in on any level. And child abuse is far more common than many people realize, ranging from verbal/psychological abuse to the physical and everything in between.

Spend some time in the pediatrics ward of a hospital and you'll see some very disturbing things. Agencies like CPS are necessary, and every suspected case needs to be investigated.

Unfortunately yes, some innocent families get harmed. Innocent people also go to jail for other things. Should we say that we shouldn't arrest anyone, because you might occasionally arrest someone who's innocent?

Mistakes get made. Sometimes its an abuse of power; more often its not. But we could also go out and come up with a list of judges that abuse their power. and police. and sanitation workers. and teachers. and janitors. and fast-food clerks. and physicists. and journalists. and lawn-care workers. My point is not that abuse of power is okay, but that it happens in every profession. It's unfair to say that CPS workers are corrupt because a small portion of them are. Just like it's unfair to say that about police officers (although many people firmly believe that).

[Bogie]

Just so we all know, I didn't abandon this conversation; I was having internet issues. And it's "lamaze."

I'm in favour of parenting licenses, too. I daresay, as I've mentioned before and has been ignored, that we are dealing with a very selective sample when we talk about abuses within the system. Sure. They happen. However, I personally think that, more often than not, the children are best served by CPS's interference. The parents may not be, but if they're hurting their children, I don't much care.

Anyone who works in the system, even as tangentially as my mother, has seen some awful, awful abuses--both to children and others, not to the system. (Yes, probably they've seen some to the system, too.) I think the overzealousness of some may stem from times they felt their hands were tied because they couldn't interfere when it was needed. And, of course, the overzealousness of others comes from the fact that they shouldn't be working there at all; that's always the case in any profession.

Children can't protect themselves. Especially very young children. Do you expect two-year-olds to be able to stop their parents from scalding them with boiling water on purpose, or do you want to empower someone to protect those children? Or can you think of another choice?

I know the abuses of CPS have been discussed so this is not timely but I know of a wonderful busy hard working couple with five children, one is autistic. I know them well enough to know that they are excellent parents, and yet a neighbor reported them for a minor discipline incident that was viewed from a window across the street. CPS came and talked to them and threatened to take all of their children. It didn't happen but if these parents hadn't been cool headed in responding to CPS, CPS in their effort to "protect the children at all cost" could have ruined all the lives of the members of this family. That kind of power must have layers of checks and balances. Proof of abuse is another matter like you say. Just be really sure before you destroy a family. Families are what we need more of.

As for licensing parents, I like the idea only if all existing parents must be approved as well. If their children are being raised with hate for others based on prejudices, is that enough to deny them a license? If they are being raised without proper supervision is that enough to deny a license? If you deny a license to an existing parent can you then take their existing children away? Who decides the proper standards for evaluating parents? Obviously this won't work.

[A.DIM]

Thought police.
Parenting licenses?
CPS interventions...
PC BS!

[SeanF]

The problems start when you get to pro-actively interfering in every family...
Well, we're very far off from this.
Are we? There seem to be plenty of people in this thread alone who approve of the idea of "parenting licenses," and that certainly qualifies as pro-active interference.

Unfortunately yes, some innocent families get harmed. Innocent people also go to jail for other things. Should we say that we shouldn't arrest anyone, because you might occasionally arrest someone who's innocent?
No. But law enforcement is very limited in what they can do before someone has been tried and convicted by a jury. Likewise, there ought to be pretty strict requirements on what must demonstrated before a child is forcibly removed from his or her home.

Mistakes get made. Sometimes its an abuse of power; more often its not. But we could also go out and come up with a list of judges that abuse their power. and police. and sanitation workers. and teachers. and janitors. and fast-food clerks. and physicists. and journalists. and lawn-care workers. My point is not that abuse of power is okay, but that it happens in every profession. It's unfair to say that CPS workers are corrupt because a small portion of them are. Just like it's unfair to say that about police officers (although many people firmly believe that).
The importance of abuse of power is tied to the power itself. Judges, police officers, and CPS workers need to be held to a higher standard (in the performance of their duties, that is) than any of those other professions you named.

[Fazor]

The importance of abuse of power is tied to the power itself. Judges, police officers, and CPS workers need to be held to a higher standard (in the performance of their duties, that is) than any of those other professions you named.
I don't disagree, I disagree with the view that they are ALL corrupt, because a few of them are. That's a drastic over generalization, and is a personal pet peeve of mine (since PO's are subject to the same generalization, and that's what my passion has been for the last 5 years. I am certainly not corrupt and take it personally when people classify me as such).

Are we? There seem to be plenty of people in this thread alone who approve of the idea of "parenting licenses," and that certainly qualifies as pro-active interference. Purely anecdotal evidence (granted so was my "i don't know a single family who..." claim). This is a board for people with similar interests, it's not surprising that so many would have similar opinions. Ask the same question on, say, red book.com and I'm sure you'd get very different answers.

Likewise, there ought to be pretty strict requirements on what must demonstrated before a child is forcibly removed from his or her home.
This is an assumption that there are not strict requirements for the removal of children from parent's custody.

[mike alexander]

Parenting Licence? OK, here are some questions:

1)Your infant is up crying with colic for the 11th straight night. You are running on 2-3 hours of sleep for that period of time. Do you

a) Put him back in his crib and close all the doors with a pillow wadded in your ears
b) Bash him against the wall, already
c) Rock him while singing Beach Boys songs to stay awake


2) Your child has a fever of 101 degrees. The pediatrician says to keep him cool and give him liquids unless the fever rises to 103, when you should take him to the hosptal. Do you

a) put him to bed and check him in the morning
b) take his temperature every twenty minutes all night, just in case
c) plan your bus route at 3AM (optional)


3) Your child's pet hamster died. Do you

a) tell him that life isn't fair, so suck it up
b)tell him you will get another one, then flush the corpse down the toilet
c) Find a box and line it with a soft cloth, so you can bury the dead pet in the back yard

Send the results to me, I'll get back to you on whether Child Services will be calling.

[Pinemarten]

My answer isn't on the list.
d) Run away and let someone else deal with it. ;)

[Bogie]

Parenting Licence? OK, here are some questions:

1)Your infant is up crying with colic for the 11th straight night. You are running on 2-3 hours of sleep for that period of time. Do you

a) Put him back in his crib and close all the doors with a pillow wadded in your ears
b) Bash him against the wall, already
c) Rock him while singing Beach Boys songs to stay awake
Obviously the child needed to go to emergency several days ago, and should have been admitted for a few days for observation. By then the parent is rested up for another round.

2) Your child has a fever of 101 degrees. The pediatrician says to keep him cool and give him liquids unless the fever rises to 103, when you should take him to the hosptal. Do you

a) put him to bed and check him in the morning
b) take his temperature every twenty minutes all night, just in case
c) plan your bus route at 3AM (optional)
Put the child in hot water and immediately take it to emergengy and get it admitted until the fever is down. Of course you can visit.

3) Your child's pet hamster died. Do you

a) tell him that life isn't fair, so suck it up
b)tell him you will get another one, then flush the corpse down the toilet
c) Find a box and line it with a soft cloth, so you can bury the dead pet in the back yard
Another emergency visit. Children need to be under professional observation when a tramatic experience occurs. The parent is not equipped to handle these delicate situations. Take the child to emergency and by now they know you well enough that you can just explain the situation and leave the child in good hands for as long as necessary :clap: .

Now let's talk about public funding of emergency rooms in every neighborhood :exclaim: .

[SeanF]

The importance of abuse of power is tied to the power itself. Judges, police officers, and CPS workers need to be held to a higher standard (in the performance of their duties, that is) than any of those other professions you named.
I don't disagree, I disagree with the view that they are ALL corrupt, because a few of them are. That's a drastic over generalization, and is a personal pet peeve of mine (since PO's are subject to the same generalization, and that's what my passion has been for the last 5 years. I am certainly not corrupt and take it personally when people classify me as such).
I wasn't putting forth the view that they are all corrupt, merely that the situation makes even a few corrupt people a serious problem. Also, Publius' comments earlier in this thread about studies showing how easily people will come to abuse their authority speaks to the importance of keeping tight watch over people who have this kind of power.

FWIW, my father was a police officer for 30 years. I have nothing but respect for those who go into that line of work. :clap:

Likewise, there ought to be pretty strict requirements on what must demonstrated before a child is forcibly removed from his or her home.
This is an assumption that there are not strict requirements for the removal of children from parent's custody.
Actually, it's an acknowledgement that the people with whom I'm discussing the issue seem ready - if not eager - to roll back those requirements, apparently to the point that it would be incumbent upon the parents to demonstrate why the state shouldn't take their kids away.

EDIT: Given that I just started posting in this thread, "with whom I'm discussing the issue" seems a little presumptious. Change that to, "who have been discussing the issue." :)

[Doodler]

Yo! Heads up, folks. Seems there was an outbreak of rational thought.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18528418/

Hope this continues as such.

[publius]

Well, this just clinches it.


Blood, sex and booze. Drugs, drugs, drugs are fun. Stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, s...t...a...b... puke. So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did."


Right away, anyone with any sense should realize that Junior was just being a little shocking, a little rebellious in the very same a little brat named Richard was when he was that age would be. That's exactly the type of stunt I would've pulled -- well, thought about pulling if I had the guts -- in response to some of those well meaning people telling me not to do drugs, don't have sex, violence isn't the answer.

The last part about sex with the dead bodies was so over the top, there's no doubt. It was just a teenaged boy being a teenaged boy. And, were I his father/teacher/principal, the proper response to that would be in a similiar vein. That young man would be wearing a little flower in his hair and writing "Life is beautiful/I love people" etc, on the blackboard a few hundred to a thousand times and then being made to perhaps skip around and sing some lovey-dovey or othewise silly little song.

That's all it was, and the fact it wasn't recognized as such speaks volumes about just how ridiculous this world is becomming.

-Richard

[Gillianren]

That bit was quoted in the original article, too, as I recall.

It doesn't read to me like the writing of someone who's actually disturbed. It reads like someone who's trying to sound disturbed to test boundaries.

How many news stories can anyone produce about CPS employees doing a good job? Probably not many. Those stories don't make headlines. No one notices the children for whom the system works.

Does the system need to be improved? Yes. What we need is responsible, intelligent, compassionate people willing to be foster parents. Or run group homes. However, if there aren't, or aren't enough, a lot of children will go into less than ideal homes. However, it seems, based on my information, that the greatest danger to children in group homes is the other children. Perhaps more good foster parents would help that problem, too.

[Dr Nigel]

... I'd wrather exercise my technical writing skils via letters to my representatives ...

(my bolding)
:lol:

Nice one!

[Dr Nigel]

... And it's "lamaze."

Thanks. Noted for future reference.

[Dr Nigel]

...What we need is responsible, intelligent, compassionate people ...

I think that's the answer to so many problems! :)

... to run the country.
... to work in healthcare.
... to be in control of the armed forces.
and so on.

[Gillianren]

Yes, well. Right now, my boyfriend can't tell me when he'll be home; he'll call me before he steps on the plane. He knows, mind you, but he can't tell me.

[Moose]

He's just about due, though, isn't he? (Based on fuzzy memory of what you'd said when he went...)

[Jim]

Yes, well. Right now, my boyfriend can't tell me when he'll be home; he'll call me before he steps on the plane. He knows, mind you, but he can't tell me.

Unfortunately, that makes sense.

[Gillianren]

He's due for leave sometime this month. Originally, he was supposed to be home for good in November. Of course, now, he won't be; he'll be home for good three months later at best. In good news, though, the last two months of that will be Fort Lewis, just fifteen or twenty miles up the freeway. Instead of Wisconsin, which is substantially farther away and the place those last two months were originally going to be.

[publius]

I just stumbled across this story, an example of the Stanford Prison Experiment in real life:

http://www.local6.com/news/13285114/detail.html

This kind of crap will happen when you let it.


-Richard

[Fazor]

Does this story suprise you? This stuff goes on all the time. It's been a cental theme in many books and movies (including one of my all-time favorites, Shawshank Redemption). If you watch law news, you'll see stories of guards being charged with this stuff on an almost weekly basis. And usually if one guard is guilty it means there are others doing aswell.

As mentioned in the Stanford experiment, prison culture is a totally different way of life than most of us are accustomed to. I'm not saying it's right for guards to behave like this, but it's not unusual given the circumstances. If you had to interact with someone who was guilty of say, rape and murder, how would you treat that person? In all honestly, I wouldn't treat them all that well either.

[mugaliens]

While prison officials refused to honor the last request of a condemned man (Workman) that his last meal be a vegetarian pizza donated to the homeless, the citizens around the area made prison officials look like real jerks by buying pizzas for the homeless (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/09/execution.pizza/index.html), anyway.

See what I mean about our country's criminal justice system being all screwed up?

Yet another tip of the iceburg...

But it's also about how Workman, himself homeless at the time he committed his crime, tried to do something nice for others, and about how the hearts of others, hearing of this, multiplied the man's kindness a hundred-fold.

[Gillianren]

But it's also about how Workman, himself homeless at the time he committed his crime, tried to do something nice for others, and about how the hearts of others, hearing of this, multiplied the man's kindness a hundred-fold.

Which is certainly better than multiplying his crime a hundred-fold.

Edit: Besides, more people got fed because the prison didn't fulfill the man's request; they could have bought one pizza (their budget not being unlimited and all). By not doing it, they inspired people to buy a lot of pizzas.

[LurchGS]

Gillian -

this is true - but I sincerely doubt it was deliberate on the part of the prison officials.

[Gillianren]

Gillian -

this is true - but I sincerely doubt it was deliberate on the part of the prison officials.

I doubt it, too. I think the decision on the part of the prison officials was, "We're supposed to provide a last meal for the condemned, not whoever the condemned wants to feed." I suspect regulations fit in there somewhere.

[Damien Evans]

Indeed.

Dons, I hope you realize that there really are people who are mentally ill and in need of help, and that you are wrong about psychology. It's saving lives all over the world. It's not as exact a science as physics, but for one thing, CPS workers make very little money, so it's not as though a raise will get them to the same income a similarly-qualified person would in the private sector or anything.

I am mentally ill, and I think Gods for the help I can be provided. I also sincerely hope, for their sake, that no one you love is mentally ill and subject to your harangue on the evils of a profession that does more good than harm--a lot more.

Some would say i am mentally ill.

In reality, i was just born with a brain that works slightly different than "normal" peoples.

In case your wondering what i'm on about, I have Aspergers Syndrome, a (In my case quite mild) form of Autism. (another name for it is Autism Spectrum Disorder. I dislike this term because of its use of the word disorder)

Oh yeah, and i 100% agree with Gillian

[Gillianren]

Some would say i am mentally ill.

In reality, i was just born with a brain that works slightly different than "normal" peoples.

And that is indeed an illness. At least by my way of looking at it.

The problem is, there's such a stigma against mental illness that people (obviously not me, but a lot of others) don't want to admit they have it. If they did, pretty much everyone would know that they know someone who's mentally ill whom they love, admire, and/or respect anyway. We're not all drooling and babbling on buses. A lot of us seem perfectly normal so long as we take our meds. (No, mine still aren't working, but give it a couple more weeks and we'll see.)

[Damien Evans]

And that is indeed an illness. At least by my way of looking at it.

The problem is, there's such a stigma against mental illness that people (obviously not me, but a lot of others) don't want to admit they have it. If they did, pretty much everyone would know that they know someone who's mentally ill whom they love, admire, and/or respect anyway. We're not all drooling and babbling on buses. A lot of us seem perfectly normal so long as we take our meds. (No, mine still aren't working, but give it a couple more weeks and we'll see.)

I prefer to call it a difference rather than an illness, as an illness implies that there is a way to cure it, and there is no way to cure Aspergers, nor do i want there to be (because any "cure" would involve someone mucking around with my brain, and i'd rather leave that alone unless i have cancer in there)

Oh yeah, and i'm lucky enough not to need meds, but i probably do need someone to yell at me to do my uni work...

[mugaliens]

Which is certainly better than multiplying his crime a hundred-fold.

Edit: Besides, more people got fed because the prison didn't fulfill the man's request; they could have bought one pizza (their budget not being unlimited and all). By not doing it, they inspired people to buy a lot of pizzas.

Yeah - that's true. Maybe God does have a plan for us all...

[LurchGS]

I prefer to call it a difference rather than an illness, as an illness implies that there is a way to cure it, and there is no way to cure Aspergers, nor do i want there to be (because any "cure" would involve someone mucking around with my brain, and i'd rather leave that alone unless i have cancer in there)

Oh yeah, and i'm lucky enough not to need meds, but i probably do need someone to yell at me to do my uni work...


I disagree - I think you are not differentiating between 'illness' and 'disease'. disease implies cure - illness, on the other hand, just means that something is wrong. Of course, if you are an optimist, there's a cure for any illness - it just hasn't been found yet

[Infinity Watcher]

I prefer to call it a difference rather than an illness, as an illness implies that there is a way to cure it, and there is no way to cure Aspergers

I'm going to take issue with this as a definition, this is more of a semantic quibble since I think I see what you mean but illness doesn't imply a cure, HIV/AIDS and Ebola have no cure but they're fairly indisputably illnesses (okay, in my experience people can dispute anything). The definition of health on the other hand is a lot more fuzzy so it is quite possible to have a health related condition but still be healthy. I'm trying to pick my words carefully to be clear but I suspect I'm making myself even more indistinct e.g. in the case of someone with (trying to think of something fairly common: colour blindness )they have a medical condition but may still be healthy depending on which definition the person assesing "health" is using, for example they wouldn't experience a particularly increased mortality rate [unless the colour blindness was from some other condition but I think that explains what I'm trying to say] and may be perfectly happy with their situation.

The rest of your post is fair enough though, autonomy is a pretty major point in medical ethics especially when combined with informed consent and if you don't wish a medical treatment then that is your choice and as such perfectly reasonable and I doubt any healthcare practitioner who held to the commonly accepted principles of medical ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics) would have a problem with that (whilst I don't know law around the world I imagine most places do have legally defined circumstances under which autonomy can be overridden and there are circumstances under which it can be probably ethical to do so but these are normally circumstances under which respecting autonomy would lead to harm to others for example in the case of dealing with people who due to severe mental illness pose a danger to themselves or others there may be facility to detain them for treatment against their will) This is as always with ethics a debated area as to where the line should be drawn so I won't get into that.

This turned into a long post for what it was initially intended to be so I'm going to stop writing now, come back in a bit and recheck it to make sure I haven't pulled my usual trick of inserting foot into mouth and then post it (watch my mistakes slip right past this post's QA procedure allwoing me to perform my usual trick anyway!).

[Damien Evans]

Lurch, Infinity, you are correct

I guess i'm just not comfortable with the idea of me being ill, unless it's with a cold or something like that

[Maksutov]

The funny thing is, there are already laws on the books for criminal thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime).

Without the thought none of these crimes would qualify.

[LurchGS]

Lurch, Infinity, you are correct

I guess i'm just not comfortable with the idea of me being ill, unless it's with a cold or something like that

I quite understand. To be honest, I still don't believe I'm bipolar - in spite of the fact that I've not had any problems since I started my meds (it's not a severe form, fortunately, but there were some times I made l've a little more interesting than it should be for my wife). However, my wife is somebody I rather trust, and if she says 'bipolarism', I'm inclined to take steps to deal with it. (she's a paramedic - but more to the point, she and the kids are *outside* my skull and see things differenly from me). After questioning/testing, the doctor DID decide there was something to it.

So.. the upshot of all this.. in my head, rationally thinking, I act as though the premise is true. I take my meds every day. But I don't really *BELIEVE* it. I certainly don't like the thought that it might be possible.

[mugaliens]

The funny thing is, there are already laws on the books for criminal thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime).

Without the thought none of these crimes would qualify.

So then, do you think it'll get to the point where they hook us up to a lie detector, ask us a bunch of questions like, "do you hate race x?" and if we ping the machine, they'll throw us in jail?

[Gillianren]

I quite understand. To be honest, I still don't believe I'm bipolar - in spite of the fact that I've not had any problems since I started my meds (it's not a severe form, fortunately, but there were some times I made l've a little more interesting than it should be for my wife). However, my wife is somebody I rather trust, and if she says 'bipolarism', I'm inclined to take steps to deal with it. (she's a paramedic - but more to the point, she and the kids are *outside* my skull and see things differenly from me). After questioning/testing, the doctor DID decide there was something to it.

So.. the upshot of all this.. in my head, rationally thinking, I act as though the premise is true. I take my meds every day. But I don't really *BELIEVE* it. I certainly don't like the thought that it might be possible.

That's a situation in which people are likely to stop taking their meds. May I urge you not to? It's well-established in the medical profession that those who see you every day are more likely to know that something's wrong with your moods than your doctor is, simply because they do see you every day.

I long since became accustomed to the fact that I'm ill--and, of course, there's no cure for mine and Lurch's, either. I don't like it, but I'm used to it. But if I act as though nothing's wrong, things only get worse.

[AstralSpirit]

So then, do you think it'll get to the point where they hook us up to a lie detector, ask us a bunch of questions like, "do you hate race x?" and if we ping the machine, they'll throw us in jail?
This would violate our fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

[Damien Evans]

That's a situation in which people are likely to stop taking their meds. May I urge you not to? It's well-established in the medical profession that those who see you every day are more likely to know that something's wrong with your moods than your doctor is, simply because they do see you every day.

I long since became accustomed to the fact that I'm ill--and, of course, there's no cure for mine and Lurch's, either. I don't like it, but I'm used to it. But if I act as though nothing's wrong, things only get worse.

At lea you can get treatment for what you have, all i get is school help (and now i'm at uni, not even that)

[Gillianren]

At lea you can get treatment for what you have, all i get is school help (and now i'm at uni, not even that)

Well, I have my latest intake appointment this afternoon. My previous provider has stopped seeing patients in my area, because the commute between Aberdeen, WA, and Olympia was just becoming too much for her. She is the third provider I've had in the last two years. Luckily, the new one (number four!) requires long-term therapy during my treatment.

And it's true that there are drugs for my condition. So far, the one I'm on isn't working, but I'll be sure in another few weeks whether it's going to or not. If it doesn't, the alternatives are unpleasant. Keep your fingers crossed for me, kids, and I'll keep mine crossed for something that helps your condition.

[Dr Nigel]

Some would say i am mentally ill.

In reality, i was just born with a brain that works slightly different than "normal" peoples.

In case your wondering what i'm on about, I have Aspergers Syndrome, a (In my case quite mild) form of Autism. (another name for it is Autism Spectrum Disorder. I dislike this term because of its use of the word disorder)

...

You remind me of a book I read called The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (which has a wiki entry here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Curious_Incident_of_the_Dog_in_the_Night-time)). The book is written from the perspective of a boy with Asperger's. The author did not use integers for the chapter numbers, but instead used prime numbers. As I progressed through the book, I started trying to work out in my head what the next chapter number would be. Also, it is written very sympathetically and I found myself very much in accord with the protagonist.

[Dr Nigel]

I prefer to call it a difference rather than an illness, as an illness implies that there is a way to cure it, and there is no way to cure Aspergers, nor do i want there to be (because any "cure" would involve someone mucking around with my brain, and i'd rather leave that alone unless i have cancer in there)

Reminding me of another book: Speed of Dark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_Dark) by Elizabeth Moon. It is written as a near-future novel, in which the protagonist is offered a "cure" for his autism.

... but i probably do need someone to yell at me to do my uni work...

Do your Uni work!!!

Did that do the trick? :)

[LurchGS]

THere's not much danger of my not taking my meds - if I skip a day, I'm ok.. but if I skip *two* days, the withdrawals get.. interesting.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

THere's not much danger of my not taking my meds - if I skip a day, I'm ok.. but if I skip *two* days, the withdrawals get.. interesting.
Hmmm ...

Interesting, as In The Hangover from Heck ...

Or, Interesting, as In a DANGER to yourself and Others?

:think:

[publius]

Hmmm ...

Interesting, as In The Hangover from Heck ...

Or, Interesting, as In a DANGER to yourself and Others?

:think:

I hope you didn't mean that as it could be taken. ;)

I'm guessing what Lurch means is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome


-Richard

[Damien Evans]

Reminding me of another book: Speed of Dark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_Dark) by Elizabeth Moon. It is written as a near-future novel, in which the protagonist is offered a "cure" for his autism.



Do your Uni work!!!

Did that do the trick? :)

unfortunately not

[Maksutov]

Hmmm ...

Interesting, as In The Hangover from Heck ...

Or, Interesting, as In a DANGER to yourself and Others?

:think:That's weird!

You didn't capitalize the "a" in "as". Twice.

[Damien Evans]

That's weird!

You didn't capitalize the "a" in "as". Twice.

whos been possessing Zaphod?

[Maksutov]

whos been possessing Zaphod?It's pretty obvious that Pazuzu is doing his thing, putting on airs and all that.

As Dubya said to Liza, http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I hope you didn't mean that as it could be taken. ;)

I'm guessing what Lurch means is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome


-Richard
WHOA ...

So, Been There ...

Lurch, from Someone Who's Experienced it, The Wiithdrawl is Far Worse than The Disease, Ever Was!

[LurchGS]

I've been there a couple times - ran out on the road sorta thing. Not pleasant at all. I'd rather have a hangover (no, not a danger to anybody - just feel*very* wrong).. fortunately, I didn't have to go more than 2 days before finding a pharmacy

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I've been there a couple times - ran out on the road sorta thing. Not pleasant at all. I'd rather have a hangover (no, not a danger to anybody - just feel*very* wrong).. fortunately, I didn't have to go more than 2 days before finding a pharmacy
Yeah, I Remember The Feeling ...

Wiith me it Wasn't About Running Out of The Meds ...

I'd Been Mis-Diagnosed but Nobody Completely Realized it, So My Parents, Doctor, and Hiigh School, Wanted me to Go on Zoloft in Addition to Paxil, Quiite Frankly I Wasn't Having Any of That; Thus, I More or Less Staged a MUTIINY, and Quiit All of it Cold Turkey!

:mad:

[publius]

and Quiit All of it Cold Turkey!

:mad:

That is the last thing you want to do. Some people, a few, can do it cold turkey. Many can't, and I wouldn't wish the results of that on my worst enemy. The trick is to do it slowly. The longer one has been on them, the worse it will be generally.

Paroxetine is one of the worst, and one of its little parting gifts can be anxiety like you've never experienced before in your life. I know all about that. I thought I was tough, but I had no idea. Gave me a whole new perspective on some things. Before that, I would've dismissed "panic attacks" as just hysterical nonsense. Not any more.

This little "issue" can get quite contentious. I have my position on it, and I'll just say that if anyone here wants to get off this wonderful stuff, just PM me, and we'll talk. I've been down a road and know a little bit about it.

-Richard

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

That is the last thing you want to do. Some people, a few, can do it cold turkey. Many can't, and I wouldn't wish the results of that on my worst enemy. The trick is to do it slowly. The longer one has been on them, the worse it will be generally.

Paroxetine is one of the worst, and one of its little parting gifts can be anxiety like you've never experienced before in your life. I know all about that. I thought I was tough, but I had no idea. Gave me a whole new perspective on some things. Before that, I would've dismissed "panic attacks" as just hysterical nonsense. Not any more.

This little "issue" can get quite contentious. I have my position on it, and I'll just say that if anyone here wants to get off this wonderful stuff, just PM me, and we'll talk. I've been down a road and know a little bit about it.

-Richard
Oh Yeah, That's What they Told me Too, Luuckily The Siide Effects Kept me from Building Up a Truly Theraputiic Level and My System Flushed it Out in a Few Days ...

As I Said, My REAL Problem was Mis-Diagnosis, More Recently I've Had Myself Re-Evaluated By a Normal Competent Psychiatriist, as it Turns Out I'm Actually a Rather Hiigh-Functioning Obsessiive-Compulsiive and So Loong as I Keep My Compulsions on Triviial Thiings, I Do Ok ...

The Worst Part Wasn't Even When they Thought I was Bi-Polar, it was When they Thought I Had ADHD Instead, Juust Remember, Ritalin Makes you Paranoid and Compulsiives Juust Love to Obsess About Suuch Thiings!

[LurchGS]

I have a friend who's prescribed insanely high doses of painkillers - it used to be morphine, but he didn't like the side effects, so he told his [my opinion: worthless] Doctor to find something else, while he quit.

That was a rough month.

Now he's on other fun meds. They don't handle the pain so well, but at least he's here on this planet most of the time.

For those of you who wonder about tolerance - he weighs about a third what I do, and the dose he takes at any given time would almost certainly kill me. He takes this stuff 4 times a day.

(and, to get even farther OT, the state is fighting declaring him 100% disabled. Morons)

[davidlpf]

(just an aside)
I hope they never convict people for violent thoughts because tonight I would have multiple life sentences.
(now back the regular scheduled program)

[Damien Evans]

i'd have multiple life sentences every time i look at the conspiracy theories forum

[Dr Nigel]

i'd have multiple life sentences every time i look at the conspiracy theories forum

Wouldn't we all?

Also, I occasionally read the Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org) blog, and some of the tactics of the antievolutionists have nearly made my head explode.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Wouldn't we all?

Also, I occasionally read the Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org) blog, and some of the tactics of the antievolutionists have nearly made my head explode.
Nearly ...

I Suspect, you May Have Miissed Thiis (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/privates_by_sat.html) One ...

I Thiink, they Won't Be Truly Happy, Untiil we're All EXTINCT, I Really Believe That!

[Damien Evans]

Glad to see Zaphod's back to normal

[Dr Nigel]

Zaphod, thanks for the link. You're right; I had missed that one.

The way it was addressed on PT made me chuckle.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Zaphod, thanks for the link. You're right; I had missed that one.

The way it was addressed on PT made me chuckle.
Eh, The Whole Thiing Made me Absolutely Siick ...

As One of The Commenters Pointed Out:

Unfortunately, I have to confess to not reading the book thoroughly… or even much at all. Flipping through the pages, the only text I came across was standard creo nonsense, all of which I had read countless times before, so I didn’t delve into it. In other words, it was complete rubbish. However, I can say that anything it said about sex ed could probably be trumped by the segment on the episode of The Simpsons where Bart’s class watches a sex ed video hosted by Troy McClore and starring two bunny rabbits. At the end of the spot, Troy tells the kids from on screen, “Now that you know how to do it, don’t.”
But what we know about sex ed from the Conservative Christian/Creationist crowd, the message is more like “We won’t even tell you how to do it.”
And how successful are such programs? Well, I recently read that of all the kids that take these pledges to obstain from sex umtil marriage, some 85% or more DO have sex before marriage, and because they have no proper sex ed behind them, are three times more likely to have unprotected sex.
That’s why I am encouraging all of you to post a link to my informative little piece on Christian web sites, so we may educate the masses the truth about boobies, beavers, and the weeneus.
Perhaps I’ll get some sort of public service award from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Even Worse, they're Now Telling their Chiildren that Condoms Don't Even Work; As I Can't Imagiine Anythiing More IRRESPONSIBLE, I Considered Posting a Topic About it on The General Science Forum, But Deciided Not to as I Was Concerned it Would Very Swiiftly Degenerate, into a Religious and Political Flame War!!!

[Damien Evans]

Eh, The Whole Thiing Made me Absolutely Siick ...

As One of The Commenters Pointed Out:



Even Worse, they're Now Telling their Chiildren that Condoms Don't Even Work; As I Can't Imagiine Anythiing More IRRESPONSIBLE, I Considered Posting a Topic About it on The General Science Forum, But Deciided Not to as I Was Concerned it Would Very Swiiftly Degenerate, into a Religious and Political Flame War!!!

wise choice imo

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

wise choice imo
Yeah ...

That's Why, I'm Givin' it a Dry Run Here ...

If Everyone ELSE Thiinks So, it Saves me from Makin' a Soon-to-Be-Locked Thread!

:wall:

[Doodler]

Nearly ...

I Suspect, you May Have Miissed Thiis (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/privates_by_sat.html) One ...

I Thiink, they Won't Be Truly Happy, Untiil we're All EXTINCT, I Really Believe That!

I would encourage them in this effort. They won't convince everyone, and anyone they convince is rightfully expendable.

[LurchGS]

there you go - absolute proof of evolution in action

[Dr Nigel]

Ah, but, Lurch, it's microevolutionTM, and variation within a created kind is acceptable, you see.

Oh, but wait... what's to stop variation within a "kind" giving rise to new "kinds"...?

[Damien Evans]

haha, you have fallen into our clever trap!

[Noclevername]

I prefer to call it a difference rather than an illness, as an illness implies that there is a way to cure it, and there is no way to cure Aspergers, nor do i want there to be (because any "cure" would involve someone mucking around with my brain, and i'd rather leave that alone unless i have cancer in there)

Oh yeah, and i'm lucky enough not to need meds, but i probably do need someone to yell at me to do my uni work...

I also have Asperger's, and the fact that it mucks up my life to the point of being on disability instead of earning my own keep definitely makes it an illness as far as I'm concerned. I do take meds for it (of questionable effectiveness, although at this point the withdrawal from missing them makes me loopier than I'd like to be:cry:). Thereare plenty of incurable illnesses, what makes it an illness is whether it affects your functioning or not. It's so bad I might have fallen into the same trap as this poor kid, and taken the teacher's "don't censor yourself!" all too literally. I have a tendency to do things like that.:doh:

There but for the grace of Agnosticism go I...

[Damien Evans]

Mine's so minor it wasn't even picked up until i was 16, so it can't have been that bad

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Mine's so minor it wasn't even picked up until i was 16, so it can't have been that bad
Yeah, I KNOW that Feeling ...

I Seem to Have a Minor Case of Everythiing ...

Too Siick to Be Well, But Too Well to Be Cured!

:wall:

[Noclevername]

Unfortunately, mine was misdiagnosed as everything from depression to anxiety to schizoid tendencies, until about 2 years ago. I've been in & out of therapy and on a roulette-wheel of different medications, trying to fight the wrong symptoms. Asperger's isn't something that was widely studied or accepted as a diagnosis in this country until recently.

I wonder how many other undiagnosed conditions have led to problems like the one this thread's about, and other even worse problems such as violence?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Unfortunately, mine was misdiagnosed as everything from depression to anxiety to schizoid tendencies, until about 2 years ago. I've been in & out of therapy and on a roulette-wheel of different medications, trying to fight the wrong symptoms. Asperger's isn't something that was widely studied or accepted as a diagnosis in this country until recently.

I wonder how many other undiagnosed conditions have led to problems like the one this thread's about, and other even worse problems such as violence?
Oh Yeah, SAAME Here, Finally Had to Diagnose Myself, I Don't Recommend that BTW ...

Furthermore, I'm So Siick of The Whole Better Liiving through Chemistry Stance, That Psychiatry Has Now, That I Siimply Psycho-Analyze Myself Once a Year, it's Cheaper and I'm Better at it ...

As for The Violence, Oh, I've Been There, When you Feel The Whole World is Out to Get you and you Siimply Wanna End it All; Juust Remember, The Only Difference Between a Shooter and a Suiciide, Is The Shooter Feels a Need to Share The Pain!

[Damien Evans]

Yeah, I KNOW that Feeling ...

I Seem to Have a Minor Case of Everythiing ...

Too Siick to Be Well, But Too Well to Be Cured!

:wall:

yep, thats pretty much it

[mugaliens]

Interesting - from a topic on punishment for criminal thought it's turning into group therapy.

Nothing wrong with that - I've been attending AA since Aug, 06. It's helped, a lot, and I really appreciate the understanding of the mods (S) as things in my life continue to improve, slowly, erratically, but on an upward's slope nevertheless.

[Noclevername]

Well, my thoughts in school may not have been "criminal", but they were definitely so different from those of other kids that expressing them, verbally or not, frequently led to me being "punished" (verbally, physically or through humiliation) by my fellow inmates oops I mean classmates, and sometimes by clueless teachers when I didn't meet their unspoken expectations of behavior or responses. I was so frustrated and confused that sometimes, it did lead to violence (no guns, just fists). Like I said, I could have very easily wound up where that kid is...

Punishing criminal thoughts is just a short trip from punishing nonconforming thought.

[Gillianren]

Gillian's Medical Update:

We're on yet another diagnosis, but it's probably a better one than the last one I had, which was better than the one before that--which wasn't the one the psychological tests I took in junior high showed; we're finally back to that one. I am now officially considered Bipolar Type I by the state.

However.

My last doctor has decided she doesn't want to commute between Olympia and Aberdeen, and has gone back to her practice in Aberdeen, leaving me high and dry. (Fortunately, with refills for a while.) The clinic is hiring someone to take her place, but they haven't finished the process yet, so I have no meds management right now. In good news, though, I've gotten back to long-term therapy.

And my lawyer says they should be scheduling my federal hearing soon, after only, what, two and a half years since I first applied?

Oh, and Zaphod, we've discussed the condom thing before. I know for a fact that they're essentially teaching in Ohio that condoms don't work; my best friend's step-brother just took sex ed there, and he put the right answers on his test, not the ones they wanted! (Unfortunately, I don't know what grade he got on the test.)

[Damien Evans]

what's all this stuff about condoms not working?

this some fundamentalist thing?

[Maksutov]

Who Are The Brain Police? (http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/Who-Are-The-Brain-Police.html)

[HenrikOlsen]

As I understand it, the thinking goes:
If the kids think condoms work, they can use them to have sex without getting pregnant and infected with VD's. Therefore, if they think condoms work, they will have sex (with condoms).
Since sex is a sin, knowing that condoms work is bad for your soul. Therefore we have to teach the kids that condoms don't work in order to save their souls.


This one is like teaching people that selfdefense doesn't work so they won't get mugged.

[Maksutov]

Funny that in the SE US they teach the latter, but not the former.

No one seems to see the disconnect.

Even when a neocon candidate says he supports the death penalty but is pro-life.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/konfus/a015.gif

[Damien Evans]

it's a wierd, screwed up world we live in