Soccer Mom: Unplugged

My sister and I have been having an interesting discussion about the whole FLDS child-sex scandal that seems to have disappeared from the front pages since Jeremiah Wright stepped up to claim his 15 minutes.  I'm tossing out some of my thoughts and asking you all to chime in with what you think.  This blog has been a great sounding board in the past and I always come away with a new perspective.

My sister thinks that the state of Texas acted as it should have in removing the all of the children from their homes.  I kind of disagree.  I am of the mind that evidence should preceed such a traumatic course of action.  When the state CPS entered the community and found underage pregnant girls, they should have conducted an investigation.  Since the FLDS people were uncooperative in the Q&A they had no alternative but to remove the pregnant girls to verify that they were victims of statutory rape.  Unless there were allegations or visible evidence of abuse against the prepubescent children, I don't know why they should have been removed from their mothers and relocated.  Yes, yes, I know that more than half of the girls between 14 and 17 have either had or are expecting children.  I'm not suggesting that this is acceptable.  What I am saying is that you don't traumatize the younger children based on what might happen or what happened to another.  You don't remove children from a community because the community at large is rampant with illicit activity.  There wouldn't be a child left in the inner city if we held to that standard. 

I actually heard one Div. of Family Services representative on CNN say that the absence of toys in the compound was a form of emotional abuse. He announced, as if we'd all find this completely appropriate, that the toylessness constituted a lack of stimulation.  I don't know about ya'll but if CPS busts down my door to see if I have enough playstation games or the right kind of books, some poor social worker is going to come to a full understanding of the 2nd amendment. 

I've also heard the idea tossed about on Nancy Grace that since this closed FLDS society may be complicit in the whole child-bride/statutory rape business, all of the parents should lose their children and be charged as accomplices to this gross and heinous crime.  I'm wondering where this kind of logic will end?  I don't want to be responsible or punished for the crimes of my neighbors, do you?  My best friend in high school got pregnant our junior year and her boyfriend was 21.  No one filed charges.  Her doctor didn't ask questions.  Since a large percentage of the girls in the school were mothers or were pregnant, I doubt if the counselors or teachers even noticed.  Division of Family Services never knocked on her door.  No one asked if her mom knew Darnell - of course, she did.  She knew they were dating and yet no one removed my friend's younger sister from the home or filed charges against my friend's mom. 

Of course, I understand that the presumption in this Texas case is that there is systematic and institutional abuse - but I also remember that others have claimed people like you and I are systematically abusing our children every Sunday morning and most Wednesday nights.  And I'm just not sure I trust the government to establish appropriate parameters of parenting.  If a lack of toys is considered abuse, it's absolutely foreseeable that a parent smoking in a car with children present could be charged with child endangerment.  How about those awful parents who feed their children fast food - first we tax them, then we outlaw the marketing on t.v., and the next thing you know... your kid's in foster care.  It's an oversimplification but it's what has happened and continues to happen with cigarettes, isn't it? 

Seems like I've strayed from statutory rape, huh?  In the FLDS case, all the overaged fathers should face charges.  And mothers and children should have routine home inspections until it is clear that this child-bride business is a thing of the past.  As far as the polygamy goes, well, unless there are actual bigamists among them, the FLDS can call their version of swinging or shacking up whatever they want to and it's not going to bother me.  So long as we don't stoop to legitimizing the behavior, they can do whatever in their own homes. If you are going to hold everyone to the standard of no extramarital sex, there are going to be a lot more people in jail that the couple of hundred at ElDorado.  And if, as seems to be a major concern with some of the on air analysts, the issue of abusing the welfare system bothers you - think about how many Jerry Springer guests have several "babies' daddies" and are swiping their EBT cards all over town. 

Again, I'm not defending these people, I'm just wondering how the law is going to be applied equally when others are committing the same acts but don't live in communes.

I heard of another case very close to me that illustrates an even graver concern.  The 3rd grade daughter in from a loving family with no history, or even allegation, of abuse was found dead in the home.  No immediate cause of death was determined. DFS removed all the siblings from the home and placed them in foster care.  Eventually, with the help of determined lawyers and some wiser-than-the-coroner M.D.s, the couple regained custody of their children after it was shown that the child had a seizure and the death was caused naturally.  Apparently, grieving the loss of their child wasn't enough, the state decided that since they had no explanation for her death - it must be the parent's fault.  Sound crazy?  Consider the case of a West Virginia woman who was forced to share custody with her daughter's babysitter.  Or the case of a new mother struggling with a sick baby who was falsely accused of Munchausen by proxy and lost her baby to DSS.  How about the parents (guessing they are Jehovah's Witnesses?) who refused a blood draw on their 6 week old and then the sheriff showed up on the door step and took baby Joel away.  

When I think about what is happening in Texas, I wonder where the line is for government intervention.  Were two year olds really in danger in the compound?  Nursing babies?  There weren't allegation of abuse for those children, were there?  Were they removed for lack of toys or the probabilty of being raised in a kooky environment?  Were they removed to prevent future abuse by men who ought to be in jail before they even come of "spiritual marriage" age?  Isn't that kind of Minority Report?  What do you guys think?

The NC GOP has produced an ad highlighting the extremism of Jeremiah Wright, pastor and friend of presidential hopeful Barack Obama.  This ad references the endorsements of Obama by some of the state's gubernatorial candidates and the implication is that the candidates, local and national, have questionable judgement and perhaps less than stalwart patriotism.  Fair enough. 

We all recognize that a candidate's personal life gives just as much insight, if not more, into his character as his official actions and statements.  Remember the frenzy over Hillary Clinton's channeling the spirits of past first ladies or the front page fear-mongering when newsmen found out that President Buch read Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series?  The fascination with stories like these reveal a truth most of us unconsciously know but that democratic operatives spent most of the 90s trying to deny:  a man's private character and morality are inseparably connected to the execution of his professional duties.  Patriotism, integrity, and decency aren't like a suit coat you can put on when you walk out the door in the morning.

Nevertheless, John McCain has called for the NC GOP to abandon the as-yet unreleased ad and has denounced the state party as 'out of touch'.  Judging from other recent statements, McCain believes he is trying to take the "high road" by avoiding personal attacks on his opponents.  Unfortunately, McCain's denunciation reveals as much about himself as the ad does about the democrats vying for the NC governorship.

It is completely reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect based on his associations.  it is also perfectly reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect if he or she endorses a presidential hopeful whose associates are unpatriotic, conspiracy theory spewing pastors and unrepentant domestic terrorists.

Further, it is completely reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect if he denouces state party leaders for political correctness and expediency.  John McCain cares about winning the Presidency - the NC GOP wants to win the governor's seat.  It would seem that Linda Daves knows what I know.  No matter whose inaugaration we see in January, we've already lost the White House.

According to presidential hopeful, Barack Hussein Obama, we backwoods believers, desperately clinging to the right to own a Smith & Wesson are doing so because we're out of work.  That's why we're against illegal immigration and gay marriage, too.  The point, easily extrapolated from Obama's comments to a crowd of sycophants in San Francisco, is that when poor folk lose a job they get bitter and use God, guns, and bigotry as therapeutic outlets. 

Clearly, this suggests that successful people with money and upward mobility don't need guns, God, or closed borders. 

His exact words: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, and they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Couldn't be the steady attack on their beliefs and their rights that's got 'em down, could it Barack?  Couldn't possibly be the daily redistribution of their wealth through an overgrown tax system that doles out free cash to Jerry Springer guests while leaving the working poor, well, POOR.  It would be silly to think they are upset about the erosion of their culture through the reeducation of their children, the rewriting of their history, and the invasion of undocumented job-seekers and even legal immigrants whose refusal to assimilate burdens an already behemoth government bureaucracy and requires even more funds from our pockets to pay for bilingual services.  Press uno para Espanol, Barack.

Nope - sad, mindless proles, they just need boots, a nine-to-five, and a controlling party to keep 'em occupied with state sponsored lotteries and sour smelling beer. 

Backthink life preAmersoc, preunGod... (Remember life before American socialism, before God died...) 

yeah... me, too.

Much is being made of the California case in which Justice Walter Croskey unilaterally decided that parents have no legal right to home educate.  The Wall Street Journal takes Croskey's idea to task and highlights some of the facts about home schooled students.

Not in the least surprising, teachers unions in California are excited about the latest attack on home schooling.  Such judicial nonsense will be used to lend credence to the false notion that only certified teachers are capable of educating.  The proof that such is not the case abounds within the ranks of public educators, a significant number of which begin their teaching careers through lateral entry style programs.  These programs allow college graduates with absolutely no teaching experience or college coursework to enter the classroom unsupervised as full fledged educators.  With several years to add coursework and pass the PRAXIS exams, these novice teachers with nary an hour's worth of "classroom management" or "learning styles" undergrad work are paid at the same rate as any first year teacher.

So, which is it?  Can you or can't you teach without credentials? 

Any teacher worth their salt will admit that educating is an often complex combination of inspiration, dedication, perspiration and even desperation and frustration.  It's not something you learn in those ridiculous college courses designed to elevate "teaching" from the blue collar hard work that it is to a "white collar" profession with all the perks and pretentious respectability that implies.  Not to mention the power of unionized people living from paycheck to paycheck trying fervently to create false scarcity in order to up their social value.

In the words of an old proverb - Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Better yet - Those who can teach, do it for free.  Those who can't, unionize and pretend they are the only ones who can.

Required background information for the following story:

1- A few months ago I set the ring tone on my very infrequently used cell phone to the Ben 10 theme song.  This is my 9 year old's favorite cartoon and he had taken my phone with him to the park.

2- I don't wear a watch so I brought my cell phone into church to monitor the time and keep the children's nursery, where I volunteer, on schedule.

3- My children are just getting over a cold and all have drippy noses.

It was an unusually quiet church service.  Even the infants and toddlers were virtually silent as the young boys in their crisp white shirts and colorful ties brought communion to the congregants.  Deep in prayer, I was suddenly disturbed by the sound of an oddly familiar driving rock song.  Nope.  It wasn't in my head.  My cell phone had just gone off during the most conspicuous moment of the service and was playing Ben 10 at the highest volume possible.  Kids in neighboring pews giggled.  Adult worshippers tried to appear disinterested or unaware.  I got it turned off just as a freshly scrubbed 12 year old appeared beside our pew with a tray of small plastic sacrament cups.  Red faced and flushed, I returned my phone to my purse and looked up just in time to see my 6 year old son tipping back the little cup of water.  He put the cup inside his lips, being silly as boys are apt to do.  Suddenly he inhaled and the cup lodged in his throat.  He went silent and in a split second I had one hand bracing the back of his neck while the other retrieved the cup.  My 9 year old son, sitting between Sir Sucky and I burst into uncontrollable laughter so as soon as I got a hand free, I clamped it over his mouth and whispered a dire warning to which he laughed even harder. "Mom," he sputtered, "you've got my boogers all over your hand!"  Sure enough, in my attempt to quiet him quickly, I didn't even notice that I'd wiped his nose with my hand.  All three boys were laughing now and my husband was shaking from the exertion of trying to contain his guffaws.

After a quick trip to the ladies' room to wash my hands, I returned to enjoy the sermon.  As various speakers addressed the metaphysical, I tried to find some meaning - conjure some morality tale - from the embarrassing and eventful previous few minutes.  Clearly, I'm no Aesop because the only thing that came to mind as I sat there in the Lord's house was a profane two word bumper sticker.  Yep. STUFF HAPPENS.  And perhaps the best recourse is simply to laugh out loud.

If you've been on Drudgereport today, you've seen the headline linking to Ben Smith at politico.com

So, Hill repairs foreign relations by insulting Vladimir Putin and he responds with a witty (albeit off-color) comeback.  Yes. I laughed.  But for even more fun, read the comment section.  I had to stop because my sides ached! 

I'm just waiting for Ms. Blonde Ambition to demand an apology.

According to the Evening Standard, "The archbishop of Canterbury has today [02/07/08] said that the adoption of Islamic sharia law in the UK is 'unavoidable' and that it would help maintain social cohesion." 

In an effort to help maintain social cohesion... where have I heard something similar?  Oh yeah, here.  And here. And here.  Sacrifice principle for cohesion - okay.  Catch you later I'm running out to vote for John McCain and to buy a prayer rug.