Sunday, January 29, 2006
Protecting Children
One of the stories that has been getting a lot of play over the past week from various sources is the story of Haliegh Poutre from Massachusetts. She was beaten almost to death by the adoptive mother and stepfather. The DSS of MA sought permission to remove the breathing tube from her and was granted that permission. The catch was that when they did, she kept breathing. Thank God for that.
A lot of the stories that I've seen about the case have been about how the DSS screwed up. They left her in the home. They didn't fully investigate. They didn't see the signs.
BULL SHIT.
The stories that I've read have given me plenty of cause for concern but to this point I have yet to see one which says that DSS screwed up. Yes, I know that the child is in her present condition implies that they did, but that doesn't mean that they did.
I do this on a daily basis for a living. I know that I miss things. I also know that when I have cause for concern that I have to be able to prove it to a judge, who doesn't get to see the things that I do, that there is clear and convincing evidence for my actions. People don't understand that just because I can sense that a parent is a slimey, sucky, piece of crap doesn't mean I can prove it in court.
The libertarian in me wouldn't have it any other way. I do believe that some of the scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." The more the state gets into the home, the less secure the home is. I can't believe that anybody doubts that.
The problem is where the (suddenly) interested third party gets into the act and sees with the benefit of hindisght what "should" have been done. I wholly wish that some of the pundits that "know better" would spend a week with me. They would be able to see the dangerous line that I have to walk between the rights of parents to their children (which is enshrined in laws through the ages) and the rights of kids to not get the snot beat out of them (which until recently didn't exist).
Of all the stories I've seen on the case of Haliegh, I've yet to see one that looks at what the worker in that case is going through. That worker, who took the job knowing that he or she would never be esteemed, and likely vilified, failed in the primary task of the profession. To protect the child. My prayers are with Haliegh. More are with the worker who has to deal with the fallout.
A lot of the stories that I've seen about the case have been about how the DSS screwed up. They left her in the home. They didn't fully investigate. They didn't see the signs.
BULL SHIT.
The stories that I've read have given me plenty of cause for concern but to this point I have yet to see one which says that DSS screwed up. Yes, I know that the child is in her present condition implies that they did, but that doesn't mean that they did.
I do this on a daily basis for a living. I know that I miss things. I also know that when I have cause for concern that I have to be able to prove it to a judge, who doesn't get to see the things that I do, that there is clear and convincing evidence for my actions. People don't understand that just because I can sense that a parent is a slimey, sucky, piece of crap doesn't mean I can prove it in court.
The libertarian in me wouldn't have it any other way. I do believe that some of the scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." The more the state gets into the home, the less secure the home is. I can't believe that anybody doubts that.
The problem is where the (suddenly) interested third party gets into the act and sees with the benefit of hindisght what "should" have been done. I wholly wish that some of the pundits that "know better" would spend a week with me. They would be able to see the dangerous line that I have to walk between the rights of parents to their children (which is enshrined in laws through the ages) and the rights of kids to not get the snot beat out of them (which until recently didn't exist).
Of all the stories I've seen on the case of Haliegh, I've yet to see one that looks at what the worker in that case is going through. That worker, who took the job knowing that he or she would never be esteemed, and likely vilified, failed in the primary task of the profession. To protect the child. My prayers are with Haliegh. More are with the worker who has to deal with the fallout.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Buxom
Words mean things.
When I was a teenager I was introduced to the writing of some of the great pulp writers of the thirties and forties. Writers of the stories of Conan, John Carter of Mars and King Kull of Atlantis.
One of the neat things about those writers was their way with words. They used words in a way that may or (Probably) not be suffered, much less condoned today in these politically correct times. The problem with that is that the language has lost some many colorful terms that still apply today.
It wasn't unusual for Conan to call someone a son of a cur, which I learned when I went to a dictionary meant a female dog of less then reputable lineage, aka bitch, or for him to call a son of an unmarried mother a bastard. A barbarian from the steppes of Cimmeria used more flowerful language than many of today's politicians do because it fit.
It annoys me that some of the phrases that wove through the language of the pulps are now so "offensive" that they can't be used anymore. As I was walking home from the bar this evening, I happened to look at a car on the square. Inside was a young woman of significant mammary proportions. I thought to myself, "That is a buxom wench." As I walked away enjoying the mental image of a female of ample proportions, I started to think about how those words, which may have once been a compliment could now get me sued for sexual harassment. It just doesn't seem fair.
The Miss America contest was this past weekend. In it were 50+ young women, all strutting their stuff, in hopes of a year of fame and lots of money. But should I happen to see them outside of that venue and comment about the Buxomness of them, it would be wrong.
No, not wrong, improper. It would be right in that the young woman would likely be buxom. And wearing a swimsuit with a push-up bra to accent the fact.
While wench has some connotations to it that may or may not be significant, BUXOM does not. I think that I am going to have to use it more often in polite society, if only to annoy those it may offend. Then I can tell them that it is only a word and in the PC world we live in that we may be able to parse the meaning of "is" but Buxom means what it does.
When I was a teenager I was introduced to the writing of some of the great pulp writers of the thirties and forties. Writers of the stories of Conan, John Carter of Mars and King Kull of Atlantis.
One of the neat things about those writers was their way with words. They used words in a way that may or (Probably) not be suffered, much less condoned today in these politically correct times. The problem with that is that the language has lost some many colorful terms that still apply today.
It wasn't unusual for Conan to call someone a son of a cur, which I learned when I went to a dictionary meant a female dog of less then reputable lineage, aka bitch, or for him to call a son of an unmarried mother a bastard. A barbarian from the steppes of Cimmeria used more flowerful language than many of today's politicians do because it fit.
It annoys me that some of the phrases that wove through the language of the pulps are now so "offensive" that they can't be used anymore. As I was walking home from the bar this evening, I happened to look at a car on the square. Inside was a young woman of significant mammary proportions. I thought to myself, "That is a buxom wench." As I walked away enjoying the mental image of a female of ample proportions, I started to think about how those words, which may have once been a compliment could now get me sued for sexual harassment. It just doesn't seem fair.
The Miss America contest was this past weekend. In it were 50+ young women, all strutting their stuff, in hopes of a year of fame and lots of money. But should I happen to see them outside of that venue and comment about the Buxomness of them, it would be wrong.
No, not wrong, improper. It would be right in that the young woman would likely be buxom. And wearing a swimsuit with a push-up bra to accent the fact.
While wench has some connotations to it that may or may not be significant, BUXOM does not. I think that I am going to have to use it more often in polite society, if only to annoy those it may offend. Then I can tell them that it is only a word and in the PC world we live in that we may be able to parse the meaning of "is" but Buxom means what it does.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
A McGee mood
I am in a Travis McGee mood.
When I was younger, I was introduced to the writing of an author that would most likely shape my view of the world for the rest of my life. Unlike others who found Kafka, Freud, Sartre, or others of that ilk, I found a better and more prolific author.
In a tent in the mountains of Virginia while working at a wilderness school for delinquent and dependent teens, I was looking for something to pass the time. I found a book called something along the the lines of "Shades of Travis McGee." I began to read the first story in the volume.
The story was about a guy from Florida who spent his time getting things back for people who had them taken by less than scrupulous means. It was a way to pass the time in the woods of VA.
I was hooked.
The thing that hooked me was that Travis would do what was right, no matter how untasteful, even when he didn't want to do it. He tried as best as he could to do it within his code of conduct, which was often just to do what was less harmful to the innocent, as he went outside the words of the law to do what he needed to.
The catch was that by doing this he would often tarnish the shining armour that he always pictured himself in. And he knew this. He often commented on Don Quixote and his dented, tarnished armour tilting at windmills.
Tonight, I sit here, listening to much of the internal dialog that I read in those books many years ago (and on several occasions since). I tell myself about how I do my damnedest to make the world abetter place becuase it can be one. I tell myself that the work that I do is making that happen. I say that if I can just make a difference here or ther, it will change the cosmic balance enough to shift it from Chaos to Order.
And I know I'm full of it.
I think that it is this knowledge that drives a lot of people out this job. They get discouraged about it and say the heck with it. That isn't hard to do when you can make a lot more money with a lot less headaches in a lot of other fields. In this one the hours are often long-and at odd ones- and hard hours. The pay isn't great by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I'm supposed to be the smartest one in the family and making less than any one else. I still tell young interns to become engineers while they still have the chance.
McGee said he did it because the people that need it don't know how to do it. He was right. I doubt that I will ever get rich at this job. That's why at present I have at least two other part-time gigs going- so I can pick up occasional cash.
But the people I serve need somebody like me to do the work. Just like's McGee's clients. I won't retrieve thousands of dollars in gems or antique statues or a Florida hotel, but I may be able to retrieve something else.
A Life. Hope. Respect. A childhood. A future.
Having the hope that I can pull that off is enough to get my lazy ass out of bed tomorrow and put on my rusty, dented armour and see what windmills there are to tilt at.
C'mon, Sancho, there be dragons out there. And Dolcinea awaits us.
When I was younger, I was introduced to the writing of an author that would most likely shape my view of the world for the rest of my life. Unlike others who found Kafka, Freud, Sartre, or others of that ilk, I found a better and more prolific author.
In a tent in the mountains of Virginia while working at a wilderness school for delinquent and dependent teens, I was looking for something to pass the time. I found a book called something along the the lines of "Shades of Travis McGee." I began to read the first story in the volume.
The story was about a guy from Florida who spent his time getting things back for people who had them taken by less than scrupulous means. It was a way to pass the time in the woods of VA.
I was hooked.
The thing that hooked me was that Travis would do what was right, no matter how untasteful, even when he didn't want to do it. He tried as best as he could to do it within his code of conduct, which was often just to do what was less harmful to the innocent, as he went outside the words of the law to do what he needed to.
The catch was that by doing this he would often tarnish the shining armour that he always pictured himself in. And he knew this. He often commented on Don Quixote and his dented, tarnished armour tilting at windmills.
Tonight, I sit here, listening to much of the internal dialog that I read in those books many years ago (and on several occasions since). I tell myself about how I do my damnedest to make the world abetter place becuase it can be one. I tell myself that the work that I do is making that happen. I say that if I can just make a difference here or ther, it will change the cosmic balance enough to shift it from Chaos to Order.
And I know I'm full of it.
I think that it is this knowledge that drives a lot of people out this job. They get discouraged about it and say the heck with it. That isn't hard to do when you can make a lot more money with a lot less headaches in a lot of other fields. In this one the hours are often long-and at odd ones- and hard hours. The pay isn't great by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I'm supposed to be the smartest one in the family and making less than any one else. I still tell young interns to become engineers while they still have the chance.
McGee said he did it because the people that need it don't know how to do it. He was right. I doubt that I will ever get rich at this job. That's why at present I have at least two other part-time gigs going- so I can pick up occasional cash.
But the people I serve need somebody like me to do the work. Just like's McGee's clients. I won't retrieve thousands of dollars in gems or antique statues or a Florida hotel, but I may be able to retrieve something else.
A Life. Hope. Respect. A childhood. A future.
Having the hope that I can pull that off is enough to get my lazy ass out of bed tomorrow and put on my rusty, dented armour and see what windmills there are to tilt at.
C'mon, Sancho, there be dragons out there. And Dolcinea awaits us.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
The Child Molester Control Act
I found a story the other day about PA state senator Bob Regola wanting to introduce an act regarding prevention of child molesters repeating the offence.
The Plan? Chemical castration.
I guess that I should appreciate that at least he is thinking of the situation but I think that he is missing the boat on this one. Many of the crimes committed on children that are sexual in nature aren't really about the sex. They are about the thinking of the perp and about control or power. The need for chemical castration in these cases is minimal; what's needed is the elimination of the thinking patterns more so than the elimination of testicles.
There is already a similar bill to Regola's introduced in the State House. HB 1608, known as the Child Molester Control Act, also calls for chemical castration of offenders but it has a more important part in it. It calls for mandatory sentences of offenders whose victims are under 13 years old. The minimum is for 15 years if the offense is the first one and 30 years if there has been a previous conviction. The court can impose a life without parole sentence on the offender as well. The perpetrator would never have the opportunity to get close enough to child again to molest.
THAT is Child Molester Control.
The problem I have with the bills as they are being presented are twofold. The first is that there is no clinical proof that it would actually work. As I mentioned above the mainpart of the molester's behavior is not necessarily controlled below the belt line. It would be more effective to remove the hands or the tongue than the testicles since that is what the molester uses to get to the child. The otherissue is that it doesn't address the issue of female offenders. I know that they are not as numerous as male offenders but that doesn't change the fact that there are female offenders out there. Until that is addressed as well, the bill may be unconstitutional as it treats inmates differently based only on the sex of the offender. That may cause problems with the bill as well.
I guess we will have to see what happens with the bills over the course of the legislative session. After all, HB 1608 has been sitting in committee since June 2005 and there hasn't been any movement. I guess they were too busy giving themselves a pay raise and then giving it baack to look at other bills.
The Plan? Chemical castration.
I guess that I should appreciate that at least he is thinking of the situation but I think that he is missing the boat on this one. Many of the crimes committed on children that are sexual in nature aren't really about the sex. They are about the thinking of the perp and about control or power. The need for chemical castration in these cases is minimal; what's needed is the elimination of the thinking patterns more so than the elimination of testicles.
There is already a similar bill to Regola's introduced in the State House. HB 1608, known as the Child Molester Control Act, also calls for chemical castration of offenders but it has a more important part in it. It calls for mandatory sentences of offenders whose victims are under 13 years old. The minimum is for 15 years if the offense is the first one and 30 years if there has been a previous conviction. The court can impose a life without parole sentence on the offender as well. The perpetrator would never have the opportunity to get close enough to child again to molest.
THAT is Child Molester Control.
The problem I have with the bills as they are being presented are twofold. The first is that there is no clinical proof that it would actually work. As I mentioned above the mainpart of the molester's behavior is not necessarily controlled below the belt line. It would be more effective to remove the hands or the tongue than the testicles since that is what the molester uses to get to the child. The otherissue is that it doesn't address the issue of female offenders. I know that they are not as numerous as male offenders but that doesn't change the fact that there are female offenders out there. Until that is addressed as well, the bill may be unconstitutional as it treats inmates differently based only on the sex of the offender. That may cause problems with the bill as well.
I guess we will have to see what happens with the bills over the course of the legislative session. After all, HB 1608 has been sitting in committee since June 2005 and there hasn't been any movement. I guess they were too busy giving themselves a pay raise and then giving it baack to look at other bills.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Swann for govenor
Lynn Swann, of Steeler fame is announcing today that he wants to be the next govenor of PA. This will be an interesting run, even if it isn't after a great catch. He hasn't gone on record with many of his positions, but implies that he would be pretty conservative. It will be nice to see the Former Steeler take on the crooked Eagles fan Rendell, but I'm not real sure if he will be able to get the nomination, as Bill Scranton already has his political machine working. PA politics seems to be getting more and more fun.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Drew Barrymore
I'm not sure why but for some reason I was dreaming about Drew Barrymore last night. I don't really remember the dream but I do know that when I woke up this AM, she was on my mind.
I'm not a big fan of Drew; I'm not all that sure that she can act worth anything. I liked the way she went crazy on Letterman the one time and I think that she's supposed to have an interesting tattoo in an interesting place. I can't even think of a movie of hers that I've watched in the last couple of years. I mean I even blew off Charlie's Angels and the sequel. And if I had watched those it would have been for Lucy Liu or Cameron Diaz (or even Demi Moore). So I'm not sure what brought this particular episode on.
Even so, now that I'm thinking about it, I may have to check out a flick or two with her in it. Just to find out what my subconscious is trying to tell me.
I'm not a big fan of Drew; I'm not all that sure that she can act worth anything. I liked the way she went crazy on Letterman the one time and I think that she's supposed to have an interesting tattoo in an interesting place. I can't even think of a movie of hers that I've watched in the last couple of years. I mean I even blew off Charlie's Angels and the sequel. And if I had watched those it would have been for Lucy Liu or Cameron Diaz (or even Demi Moore). So I'm not sure what brought this particular episode on.
Even so, now that I'm thinking about it, I may have to check out a flick or two with her in it. Just to find out what my subconscious is trying to tell me.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Happy New Year
I didn't realize how long I had gone without putting anything on here. As such, one of my New Year's Resolutions is to be more consistent with getting thoughts down here. As for my other resolutions, I'm not going to put them out in public at this time because that way I don't have to admit if I don't follow through on them.
