Texas and the Cult Kids

[alaskabibear]

This is not a "gay issue" but it is something that we should all be concerned with. I was shocked when the state of Texas conducted a wholesale roundup of children based on an anonymous phone call of alleged child abuse. Now I think we all share disgust at the instances child polygamy that has taken place. However, I am much more concerned with the crass disregard for the rule of law displayed by the State in this instance. When the government becomes so strong, and then so arrogant, that they feel they are able to act outside of the law in violation of our basic rights, then all Americans should be concerned. Thankfully, the Judicial system worked again in this case.

I have said it before, but I'll say it again; I am much more frightened and concerned about the danger from our government than I am from a few gays getting married, or an oddball cult. It always saddens me to witness the religious right wing folks who blindly follow the Republican propaganda machine. They fail to realize that when they allow the rights of any minority group to be trampled they are setting the stage for their own rights to be taken away in the future. The fact is, the government has become so powerful that in truth "we the people" have lost our ability to withstand it should the need ever arise. So far, we have not been faced with a national crisis that would set the stage for a "suspension of normal rights" or the imposition of "martial law". But I ask; what would/could we do if such a thing were to happen?

 

[kbate]

It always saddens me to witness the religious right wing folks who blindly follow the Republican propaganda machine. They fail to realize that when they allow the rights of any minority group to be trampled they are setting the stage for their own rights to be taken away in the future.

Before you get too high on your anti-Right-wing horse, remember Waco and that it was Bill Clinton and his Attorney General who assaulted a fringe cult - based on specious evidence of "illegal weapons" and "child abuse". That attack resulted in over 80 deaths.

The intolerance of different people problem is not limited to the Religious Right, the Left has killed as many as the right in this regard.

 

[alaskabibear]

Before you get too high on your anti-Right-wing horse, remember Waco and that it was Bill Clinton and his Attorney General who assaulted a fringe cult - based on specious evidence of "illegal weapons" and "child abuse". That attack resulted in over 80 deaths.

The intolerance of different people problem is not limited to the Religious Right, the Left has killed as many as the right in this regard.

True. It's really just government grown too large and arrogant that is the problem (and perhaps a population grown too large to be truly free?). It does seem however that "liberals" in general tend to be more tolerant (but that is just a generality - political/cultural persuasion alone doesn't make one a nice person). When it comes to concern about government grown too large and powerful, I suspect that there are actually people of both persuasions who are equally concerned.

Did anyone see the news story on the governments new "ray gun"? It is a magnetic heat generator mounted on an armored vehicle. If fired at a person, it is impossible to resist running from the intense heat. It is touted as a great weapon by the Pentagon for places like Iraq where we could disperse a crowd without killing anyone. However, on the same news show they had interviews with local police officials who feel that they could really use something like this to break-up "unlawful" gatherings and demonstrations???

Anyway, didn't mean to get "off topic" regarding GLBT issues - but thought it important to keep other issues alive too. And what those Texan government officials did was just stupid IMO.

 

[littleninja]

The fact is, the government has become so powerful that in truth "we the people" have lost our ability to withstand it should the need ever arise. So far, we have not been faced with a national crisis that would set the stage for a "suspension of normal rights" or the imposition of "martial law". But I ask; what would/could we do if such a thing were to happen?

My father has a large collection of guns he built himself, hidden in a secret closet, for exactly this eventuality. The joke is that he could arm the whole town, should it come to that.

Honestly, I think that the only thing that's really changed is the political/cultural atmosphere we live in. Have "We the People" ever truly had the ability to withstand the possible imposition of martial law? Or do we just think it's lessening because the world seems to be becoming smaller and more dangerous?

 

[alaskabibear]

My father has a large collection of guns he built himself, hidden in a secret closet, for exactly this eventuality. The joke is that he could arm the whole town, should it come to that.

Honestly, I think that the only thing that's really changed is the political/cultural atmosphere we live in. Have "We the People" ever truly had the ability to withstand the possible imposition of martial law? Or do we just think it's lessening because the world seems to be becoming smaller and more dangerous?

I do think it has "really changed". I just recently watched the PBS series on FDR and the Great Depression and WWII. It reminded me of my own childhood in the 1950's. In reflection, the military before WWII was a joke (they had to train with wooden guns and artillery shells loaded with baking powder at the start of the war!). The police force in my own town consisted of one drunk constable. And had the "people" decided it necessary they could have easily "out-gunned" any government that would be so foolish as to run rough shod over the populace. Now, our police forces are more like military units. And the thought of any group of citizens able to withstand the fire power of a modern army is unimaginable. No, we are most surely becoming less able to withstand a dictator (should such a thing ever occur). All the more reason to use the right of our vote to try to keep sane people in power (and insane ones out).

(and I fear that all of your father's guns would avail him nothing, should the government decide to use an attack helicopter or an armored vehicle against him.)

 

[littleninja]

(and I fear that all of your father's guns would avail him nothing, should the government decide to use an attack helicopter or an armored vehicle against him.)

I agree with you there.... his sense of security is entirely false. Sort of like the maple club I keep next to my bed.

 

[emap]

Waco they did have guns, illegal or not I don't recall but a few of the cops were shot. Course that was a huge cluster@@@@ from the get go.

This new one there in Texas, they had the right idea, but they went way overboard, because of Waco. Doesn't help much that they never went and checked on the kids, child welfare will come to a persons house if the kid misses to much school. Apparently going to see a bunch of kids in a compound is to much to ask, but hey let's send 5'1" Suzy over to that crappy neighborhood with 4 shootings today and check on that one 16 year old.

Towns have never been able to stand up to the federal government forcing them to do something. The government has always had more guns and people than any one town. The losses sustained by the US army forcing a resisting town have just lowered considerably.

The problem with all the things that have been happening lately lies not with who is president, but with the number of cops compared to the number of people. Back in 1950 one cop was enough for many towns because there were only 300 people. Statistics show that there is one law breaker out of every 500 people or something, it's a pretty large number. Considering that a standard police station only has 50 cops, not counting the detectives and such, but regular patrol cops. Now think about how much space they have to patrol. Here in Pheonix it's something like one cop for every 3000 people, might be worse we keep growing faster than they can hire new cops.

Heck if you passed a joint one time at a concert you are ineligible to be a cop here.

Going by the number I said above, there is one cop for every 6 law breakers. Now before you say that isn't bad, keep in mind these law breakers are the big one, murder rape so on so forth. Abuse and fights are not covered in that so that one cop has to contend with 6 murderers, rapists and so on, along with roughly 100 fights, abuse and false claims every day. Not to mention the people who call 911 ad get a cop because they are locked out of the house, they heard a noise. I mean the stuff they have to contend with is well fffed.

Course nobody will go we need to get more cops on the streets, or start up programs to get volunteers going to the small call in so the cops can worry about drunk drivers, speeders murderers rapists etc etc. Oh no can't do that, we'll just build another prison over here and call it fixed.

That's not even addressing the other problems, like not enough social workers, teachers, prison guards, engineers actually repairing the stuff we have built, actually getting the roads over an entire state in good order.

 

[infinity706]

Well, isn't it typical procedure to take children into custody in cases where there's charges of abuse? It might not have been the best idea to do what was done, but it really isn't something that there's much precedent of since there really isn't that much polygamy in existance. So, how would you go about investigating this particular case? You would have to do something and it would be particularly difficult to investigate since this group doesn't really interact with many people in the population. I have to wonder what exactly would be a good way to handle this?

 

[emap]

Ummm infinity I sorta said already, send in a child welfare agent or three, let them go and talk to the kids. No massive raid with an armored vehicle needed, any other reports of abuse eventually lead to a child welfare agent going to the home of said supposedly abused child, not to collect the kid, just to see if there could be a truth to it.

I can't say why they did not follow the standard approach in this case. Though I have a feeling they did simply because one of the higher ups said hey let's just collect all the kids and find the abused ones that way, and nobody said let's not that is a really stupid idea.

 

[alaskabibear]

Well, isn't it typical procedure to take children into custody in cases where there's charges of abuse? It might not have been the best idea to do what was done, but it really isn't something that there's much precedent of since there really isn't that much polygamy in existance. So, how would you go about investigating this particular case? You would have to do something and it would be particularly difficult to investigate since this group doesn't really interact with many people in the population. I have to wonder what exactly would be a good way to handle this?

I guess we'll all get to watch now and see. The Texas Court basically told the Dept of Child Welfare that they over stepped the law (mark up a good one for the courts!) - so now the State will have to do what they should have done in the first place - that is; investigate the "allegations" to determine if there is in fact any child abuse occurring. If there is, then the child should be removed. But, in this case the State sort of overlooked the investigation part - and that be the problem!

emap;

I think you hit on the true issue - the population of our nation has simply grown to the point where it requires a large and strong police force to do the job of managing crime. I don't think there is some hidden conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution - just over worked cops trying to keep up mostly. It does put our freedom in a very precarious position though. It is a shame, but it seems that it is one of those inevitable changes that we really can't do anything about (except say to everyone; "Why can't we all just get along" - but Rodney King already said that didn't he? It didn't work for him and I don't hold out much hope anyone will listen to me...)

 

[emap]

Not just Rodney King said it, it's been said over and over again until everyone is blue in the face from saying it. Problem with everyone gettign along is people are by nature aggressive, with notable exceptions though not Gandhi. I'll explain that if you really don't understand though you gotta ask, it's a rather long explanation.

Anyway, people really need something to get their minds off the fact they are in a very small area with alot of people around them also in small areas. Think about it this way, in nature the predators all have eyes right in front, think of a tiger or lion. They see what is in front of them, side view not so much, enough to see everything in front of them and to the sides in roughly 150 degree field, their prey, see things in a much wider arc, generally something like 210 degree or more. People have what is generally called a predator/prey vision, though we are more predator. Most people can see in a roughly 178 degree field. What that means for those of you not into science, people are more set up to hunt than forage, we need to see things die.

The Roman's knew that and had stadiums in every city where you could watch gladiators fight and die, not to mention for a while christians being slaughtered by animals. Them being actual christians kinda varied, it was something of I don't like him so he's a christian thing, though a number of actuals got sent to the lions. Why football hockey and racing are so popular here, they are brutal and exciting, and people do die in racing on occassion. There are video games as well, online even now, Age of Conan, it is just as bloody as you would expect from something with Conan in the name.

 

[alaskabibear]

Not just Rodney King said it, it's been said over and over again until everyone is blue in the face from saying it. Problem with everyone gettign along is people are by nature aggressive, with notable exceptions though not Gandhi. I'll explain that if you really don't understand though you gotta ask, it's a rather long explanation.

Anyway, people really need something to get their minds off the fact they are in a very small area with alot of people around them also in small areas. Think about it this way, in nature the predators all have eyes right in front, think of a tiger or lion. They see what is in front of them, side view not so much, enough to see everything in front of them and to the sides in roughly 150 degree field, their prey, see things in a much wider arc, generally something like 210 degree or more. People have what is generally called a predator/prey vision, though we are more predator. Most people can see in a roughly 178 degree field. What that means for those of you not into science, people are more set up to hunt than forage, we need to see things die.

The Roman's knew that and had stadiums in every city where you could watch gladiators fight and die, not to mention for a while christians being slaughtered by animals. Them being actual christians kinda varied, it was something of I don't like him so he's a christian thing, though a number of actuals got sent to the lions. Why football hockey and racing are so popular here, they are brutal and exciting, and people do die in racing on occassion. There are video games as well, online even now, Age of Conan, it is just as bloody as you would expect from something with Conan in the name.

Have you been drinking tonight???