And Where Exactly IS the Line Between Parents and Government?

Restricted Logo XXXI didn’t have a lot of time to write about something big tonight so I wanted to find something I could write about off the top of my head. As I started to peruse the news, this article simply jumped out at me. I found it extremely interesting given the discussions that we had the other day during open mic about government intervening in order to protect the child. In Dallas, a father showed “graphic pornography” to his 8 and 9 year old daughters. I don’t know how graphic it was, they aren’t sharing that. But that was the description. The girl’s mother, who id divorced from the father, wanted to file charges against the father. Apparently there is a law that specifically states that he can not be prosecuted for doing this. I will be interested in hearing more about the rights of parents versus the rights of the state to intervene, especially in a case such as this, where the harmful material in question is really a matter of interpretation.

The story from Fox News is here:

Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch ‘Hardcore Porn’

A 1970s-era Texas law that allows parents to show “harmful material” to their children has come under fire after a prosecutor said he couldn’t file charges against a man accused of forcing his 8- and 9-year-old daughters to watch hardcore online pornography.

Baby with PlayboyRandall County District Attorney James Farren has asked the Texas attorney general’s office to review his decision not to pursue charges in the case, which has prompted at least one lawmaker to vow to change the state’s public indecency law.

“Our hands are tied. It’s not our fault. I have to follow the law,” Farren said Thursday. “The mother of the victims in this case was less than happy with this decision, which I understand. We were less than happy with the statute.”

The law apparently was meant to protect the privacy of parents who wanted to teach children about sex education, but it states clearly that parents can’t be prosecuted for showing “harmful material” to their children.

Farren said police reported the incident to his office after one of the girls told a counselor in June that her father made them watch adults having group sex and various other acts at his home in Amarillo. The parents of the girls, and their 7-year-old sister, are divorced and share custody.

The girls’ mother, Crystal Buckner, wants her ex-husband to be jailed. She said she was stunned to hear from prosecutors and police that nothing can be done.

1970's Version of Porn... Much different from today

1970's Porn... Much different from Today's offerings

The Associated Press typically does not publish the names of parents if it could identify children who might have been abused, but Buckner is seeking publicity about the case. She has printed out copies of the penal code, which she hands out to everyone she meets.

“I want people to know about this. I want parents to be mad and say, ‘No!”‘ she said. “I understand in the ’70s everybody wanted the government to stay out of their homes. I don’t want to stop parents from having that right to teach sex education, but there’s a big difference and there’s a line you should not cross when teaching.”

The Texas attorney general’s office said Thursday that it would be months before an opinion is issued and declined further comment.

You can view the article at its original source here: Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch ‘Hardcore Porn’ – Local News | News Articles | National News | US News – FOXNews.com

Kid Watching Internet PornOne of the interesting twists to this story, in my eyes, is that the law being challenged and the position being taken seems to be a conservative one. I don’t know the circumstances, but this smacks of a “moral outrage” issue. The mother is morally outraged that the father would show this to their children. And the moral clause in a situation like this usually falls to the conservative side. So it could be interesting if we find that in this situation, it would be conservatives arguing FOR government intrusion into the home. Conservatives asking the government to step in and over-rule the rights of a parent. I do understand that it is only one parent and the other is asking for intervention, and that is another twist altogether.

The other interesting side of this is the pornography in question. I have little idea how tasteful or artistic it was. All we know is that it involved group sex scenes. But what we get into here is the realm of defining what is pornography and what is not. Maybe not in this case. But should this move forward and be stricken from the books, who is to say that the state cannot later tell parents they cannot show any type of intercourse or nude adults in videos to their children? I would guess then that those same parents would be decried as negligent for not teaching their children about sex and now their 13 year old is pregnant.

And we are dealing with the recollections of children and the subsequent interpretations of adults, as I am sure that we don’t have the actual footage for review. In other words, “we saw a man putting his pee pee into a woman’s private spot. And there was a blonde woman and a dark haired woman.” This could be interpreted many ways. Perhaps a memory of two separate scenes rather than a group sex scene. We are dealing with 8 and 9 year olds here. And the interpretation was being done by outraged adults, a counselor and the mother who apparently isn’t real fond of the dad.

Censor Art MuseumAnd what about two parents who sit down and discuss it and decide that their children are mature enough to have the sex talk, and they further decide that some sort of really soft core pornography would be an appropriate way to help their child understand. Perhaps the child is 14 instead of 9. Does that change the dynamics? Do those parents not have the right to do so? They don’t if this law is thrown out. They do that, the 14 year old gets pissed cause his parents won’t let him stay out late, so he tells a counselor and the parents are arrested and jailed. Sure it is is stretch. But no more of a stretch than the parents who were arrested after taking pictures of their baby in the tub and having the developer of the film at the local drugstore call the police because they felt it was child pornography.

So I will go on record here and say that the parent has the right ot show their child whatever they want to show their child. We can call them bad parents. But I am not willing, at any point, to trust the state to properly judge the situation and act rationally. This is yet another place where the state has no say in what the parents do with their children. The biggest issue I had with the mother in this case was when she made the following statement:

“I want people to know about this. I want parents to be mad and say, ‘No!”‘ she said. “I understand in the ’70s everybody wanted the government to stay out of their homes. I don’t want to stop parents from having that right to teach sex education, but there’s a big difference and there’s a line you should not cross when teaching.”

Censored Porky PigThe problem is that there is no way for the state to determine that line that should not be crossed. Pornography to me may be something completely different than it is to someone else. She is right, parents should be mad and say no. They should say, “no, I will not allow my children to view pornography.” They should also say, “no, I will not allow the state yet another avenue to usurp the rights of parents.” Because I still want the government to stay out of our homes. I want parents to start acting like parents and stop expecting government to take the burden of raising their children. This mother has every right to be outraged. She does not have the right to force government into the homes of the rest of Texas.

That does not mean the mother has no recourse. As I said, it makes it tricky that one parent says yes and the other says no. She has every right to request a hearing with the Child Social Services in Dallas and present her case for why the father should no longer have custody. But she must step away from the position of “government does not belong in our homes, except in this case where I want government to step in and punish my son of a bitch ex-husband.”

So I will now turn it over to the rest of you. I know this is a somewhat emotional issue. And I could allow emotion to rule my thoughts on this as well. But I instead simply choose to say there is another way to deal with this issue other than allowing the government to have a say about how parents choose to raise their children. There are many solutions to every problem. The government is not the solution. I am aware I will probably get flamed on this issue by many. But I am standing my ground. No government determining what is right and wrong for me to show my son.

Blast Away.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Speaking of Deep Throat … it’s behind my next crime novel (how the mob used it like a 2nd prohibition because the GOVERNMENT banned it–a sure way to turn something into Gold–let the Government ban it). I suspect the “actors” in that movie were more abused than anybody who ever watched the movie.

    This isn’t a tough issue for me to consider. I’m against censorship. There will always be those who go too far and abuse their freedoms (or what I might consider abuse–perhaps because a parent goes what I consider “too far” and crosses a line I wouldn’t) but I think those would be far and few as compared to the rest of society. And we’re talking about pornography (and this may piss some off) but how much harm can it really do? Yes, bad sterotypes can be born from such materials, but I’m not one who believes it leads to depraved individuals running amok. If anything, it cheapens the life of the viewer (or more narrowly focuses it).

    Did the Skankies win last night? Damn … my son is gonna break my shoes today.

    • My wife’s grandmother met Linda Lovelace after Lovelace got out of the porn industry. Lovelace became a supporter against pornography, it is how they met and became friends. In the car with my wife’s grandmother she was talking about how Linda stayed with her when her husband was in the hospital for surgery and my wife later told me she was talking about Linda Lovelace.

      Lovelace was forced to stay in the porn industry by the mob and until the day she died (from natural causes) she was in fear of them coming to kill her. The female ‘actors’ were for the most part forced to take drugs, were abused, and were forced to keep making films by the mob. I don’t know anything about the porn industry today but this was how it was in the 1970’s.

      • Linda (Linda Susan Boreman) Lovelace was also let down big time by the feminist movement. She felt they used her for their purposes, profited from her name and experience and then abandoned her when she needed help most.

        She’s a sad story. The piece of shit she was married to was probably 9/10ths of her problems, but I don’t believe her story about being forced into the industry. I think she was at least partially guilty of what happened. To her credit she did walk away and her story remains a very sad one.

        The guy who played the lead was nearly put in jail for the absurd prosecution egged on by the Nixon administration (to misdirect his own problems and Vietnam) and it is believed that had Ford defeated Carter, Harry Reems would’ve gone to jail.

        Now, was that a moral prosecution or a political one?

        Again, there will be arguments on both sides of the fence but … the fact they banned the movie in New York (a criminal court judge), fed the mob a golden opportunity to cash in on another dopey societal tabboo. The estimates are: The movie cost the mob $25,000 to make and it grossed (receipts alone–there was a ton made off it without receipts–the subject of my crime novel) was $600 million. I’m not sure $600 million is accurate but I know the mob made out. See the documentary, “Inside Deep Throat” … terrific.

  2. Interesting….

    A father making his two young daughters watch hard-core group sex with him… well… either it is poor judgment, or there was something going on in his head that I’d rather believe wasn’t there. If the former (and I do not believe that porn is psychologically damaging or there would be no possible way I would have made it out of my teen years intact), then his poor judgment was in choosing a video which was made for entertainment purposes rather than educational ones. If the later, well then he should have his kids taken from him and be locked up. (I’m making assumptions on what the true nature of the video was.. just go with it).

    The government defines a minor as anyone until 18 years old. Until that time (unless emancipated), they are pretty much the property of their parents, it seems. I could go into volumes on the idiocy of the sexual prudeness of Americans, but I won’t, it’s beside the point. What I would like to know is on a slight tangent, and more pertinent to our discussion from the other day: if a minor is a human being with all the attendant rights, why may parents force them to do anything at all, ever? When do they lose that power? And more interestingly, at what point do outside forces (neighbors, child protective services, non-custodial ex-wives, complete strangers) gain the right and/or obligation to intervene?

    • Mathius,

      While I completely agree with you that this is just horrendous judgment on the part of the father (seriously, watching porn with your two kids), that alone does not justify removing the children from the home. You argued very forcfully in the open mic – and very rightly in my opinion – for the state stepping in and removing the obese children under a theory of either neglect or abuse. In that thread you and others debated where to draw the line. Drawing the line, as USW points out, is extremely difficult. It really is a matter of knowing it when you see it. Without knowing all of the facts here I cannot support the government stepping in and removing the children from his home. What I can support though is an outraged mother arguing before a family court judge that he should lose his visitation rights. This then is not the state stepping in but a divorced mother arguing for a change in custodial rights based on changed circumstances affecting the best interests of a child (the be-all-end-all standard in child custody cases).

      Best.

      • I’m not arguing that they should remove his kids… unless there’s more to the story. There’s something very sketchy about a grown man with two young girls watching hardcore group-sex pornography. I, too, do not have the whole story, but there are a lot of sick people out there and I would want to be sure that there wasn’t an aspect to this that would warrant their removal. If the goal was educational, there are far better resources and this, at the least, shows poor judgment.

        That said, in and of itself, exposing your children to pornography should not be a concern of the government. I’m sure some will disagree with me, but if it is not harmful to the health and well-being of the child (and I defy anyone here to prove to me that it is), the government should stay out.

        There is a fine line between the government protecting children and the government trying to be their parent. The first is their job. The second is emphatically not.

        • That is the best standard for government intervention I can come up with as well, kudos. Even ‘harmful’ is a bit too fluid of a notion (what constitutes harm? how much harm are we as a society willing to allow? etc.) But then again, lets see if anyone else can come up with a more concrete standard.

          In regards to this scenario though, it is extremely sick but even if his goal was not ‘educational’ (which I will assume it was not) it would be difficult to justify removing his children solely from watching a single video. More information is needed…

          • I think harmful has to be the definition. Yes it’s wishy-washy and does allow for interpretation, but if you start defining statutes, you run into trouble with loopholes. Or with micromanaging child-rearing.

            You may not beat your child, except by hand or belt to the gluteous maximus, and then only as a disciplinary action.

            You may not expose your child to anything that damages flesh or internal organs (fire, harsh chemicals, toxins). Sunscreen must be used in case of protracted exposure to sunlight with a UV index above 8.

            You may not sexually molest your child – this would presumably require pages of details to clarify

            You must adequately feed your child, but you may not allow them to become clinically obese (except where directed by medical professionals)

            You must adequately clothe your child for the external weather. They must not be exposed to extremes of temperature (110) without proper protection

            Time outs cannot exceed 1/2 hour. Groundings cannot exceed 3 days.

            You may not allow your child to be in elevated locations or dangerous situations where the probability of accidental death or hospitalization exceeds 1% as defined by your local statistician.

            You must use a car seat / booster seat in a moving vehicle. You must use a seat belt.

            Children must be adequately hydrated at all times.

            Medical care must be provided in the event of serious injury or illness. Prayer is insufficient.

            You must provide them with an education that meets state guidelines

            You may not raise them as a Democrat/liberal

    • Mathius…. Unfortunately, there is also a law in Texas that requires teachers, health care workers, child care workers, etc. to report “suspicious” activity to CPS. Example: A teacher sees bruises on a child….the teacher is required to report it IF the teacher finds it suspicious. There is no requirement to ask questions as to whether the bruises came from football, baseball, horseback riding, bull riding, a pissed off sibling or whatever. so the term “suspicious” is totally subjective. However, the parents are automatically guilty until proven innocent. CPS can take the child from school immediately and the CPS personnel are never objective. They have been known to intimidate children into false accusations.

      I say to err on the side of the rights of parents and not assume the parents are guilty.

      • I couldn’t disagree more. Err, always, in favor of protecting the children first.

        A short story: Emilius is accident prone. She has been known to hurt herself doing even the most mundane of activities (some of which are truly ridiculous). When she was a kid, she came to school with bruises on the back of her legs from falling on the stairs. Her teacher reported it (in accordance with the law) because the bruises looked suspicious. CPS came and interviewed her and then immediately dropped the subject when it was discovered to be stupid. Total elapsed time: just a few hours. She was never removed from her parent’s care.

        They did not try to intimidate her into alleging anything – I’d love to see some evidence that that has ever happened. What they may try to do is provide an environment where it is OK to tell them. That makes sense because children may not want to tell on their parents for fear of getting in trouble.

        But let’s say there was a case of actual abuse. Should CPS investigate for months before removing the child? All the while, the child continues to be abused? Children can always be returned to their parents, but abuse cannot be undone. If you must risk an error, you should not choose the non-reversible one.

        • Okey Doke, my friend…..Unfortunately, I have seen statements that were written and the children forced to sign. It is a major source of contention here. CPS is NOT regarded as friendly. So, you and I will disagree. But that is ok….there are individual cases out there that support both sides….you and I don’t agree on the obesity issue either..and that is ok. Actually, it kind of proves both of our points, does it not? How subjective it can be?

          How are you today, sir?

          • I am well, sir, thank you. And yourself?

            While I recognize that there is legitimate disagreement on issues such as whether [severe] obesity qualifies as neglect/abuse, I think we can all get behind saying that porn does not qualify.

            But I do find it interesting that you disagree on the priorities.. that is, you seem to believe that parental rights are more important than protecting children against (perceived) child abuse. The child can be returned but abuse cannot be undone. If you have to make errors, and realistically, errors will be made, then shouldn’t the errors be the ones that can be fixed and will save children before doing a whole investigation rather than possibly leaving them in an abusive situation?

            • Convincing argument and will stated but, no, I still believe in parental rights over the children. I will be the first to say, that such a decision can lead to a child remaining in an abused situation until there is more smoke, not unlike the same decision that a commander, such as I, has to make in combat. Choosing who could possibly die….very tough and something that a decision maker lives with… However, my decision would be to err on the side of the parents.

              I wonder what the mental aspects of removing a child falsely would be? I would not know. But consider the alternatives… if a parent spanks a child in public and a person turns that person in…say with a license plate number…and CPS turns up on the doorstep…isn’t that abuse of a different nature? Would you not be abusing my rights as an individual having to answer a question as to why I spanked my child in public? Would I not be allowed the name of my accuser? Would I not be allowed to sue under false prosecution? Would it not be slander to be turned in as an abuser? Sorry…i cannot see that and this happens here. Now, on the other hand….if I was a teacher and saw consistent bruising…say, on the face…then I probably would say something. But….I would have to see consistency to convince me.

              Doing well, here. Plenty of rain…which is unusual for us…but the lakes are filling up again. However, unless e have a seriously cold winter…..fleas, ticks, and chiggers will abound.

              • I wonder what the mental aspects of removing a child falsely would be? I would not know.

                But consider the alternatives… if a parent spanks a child in public and a person turns that person in…say with a license plate number…and CPS turns up on the doorstep…isn’t that abuse of a different nature?

                Yup, but it’s also a question of severity. If your rights are trampled on a little but it saves a child from abuse, it’s a tradeoff, but the benefit outweighs the cost.

                Would you not be abusing my rights as an individual having to answer a question as to why I spanked my child in public?

                I think you should have some expectation that you generally do not have to explain your actions where they do not cause harm to a third party (if I go outside in my bathrobe, I do not owe anybody an explanation, but if I’m defacing public property, people have a right to demand an explanation). In this case your actions do cause (perceived) harm to a third party. The state is acting as agent of the child and wants to know why the child was spanked, if the answer is sufficient (he hit his sister), then the matter is dropped. Though I don’t think they’d bother with a spanking in the first place, but I’ll just go with your example.

                Would I not be allowed the name of my accuser?

                Aren’t you guaranteed the right to face your accuser in a court of law? I would think this would be no different. Though I don’t know that you’re disputing the facts of this case. You did spank your child. So what is facing your accuser going to add? You’re only arguing that it was justified, and they made no claim with regards to that.

                Would I not be allowed to sue under false prosecution? Would it not be slander to be turned in as an abuser?

                No and no. To sue for false prosecution, you need to (A) be prosecuted, and (B) the prosecutor needs to know or have credible evidence that the prosecution is false. Slander requires that the person accusing you knows it to be false (they do not. They said you hit your child and you did. You are just arguing that it was ok to do so).

                Now, on the other hand….if I was a teacher and saw consistent bruising…say, on the face…then I probably would say something. But….I would have to see consistency to convince me.

                Is it not sufficient that it happens ones or twice? And, as a teacher, who would you report it to? The CPS? Would you think it right that this child you believed was being beaten should be left with the parents for the duration of the investigation?

                Adding. I hate chiggers.. I don’t mind typing that out, but I’d sure hate to have to say it out loud where people could mishear…

              • The law is specific. You report it directly to your principal and then to CPS. No justification and the reporting party is always anonymous.

              • I guess that makes sense (you don’t want to have people afraid to report things because they’ll have to face you). Not the best situation, but it makes sense..

                However, it still stands that you are not arguing the facts of the case. They said you spanked your kid. You did spank your kid. You’re only arguing that it’s ok, but that has nothing to do with facing your accuser.

              • Further, when I did spank my children, I did it immediately and did not say…wait until I get you home. I spanked them for the infraction immediately so they knew what it was for. But, it is no one’s business that I spanked them…not yours, not the state, not the Feds….just mine. No one has a right, in my opinion, to criticize my reasoning and no one has a right to know. BUT..the fact is, CPS is here and here to stay and have broad powers that do not require a court order.

              • Makes sense.. kids have short attention spans.. if the punishment isn’t immediate, there’s a disconnect. I agree with this philosophy (though I don’t honestly know that I’m going to spank my kids, I don’t begrudge you the ability to do so).

                But the CPS doesn’t investigate spankings. They investigate beatings. If the person thought you were beating your kid, you should have to explain yourself, no?

                Imagine you are at a restaurant and the family next to yours has a crying kid. The father tries to calm the kid, the mother tries, both fail. Then father says shut up and slugs the kid in the face and knocks him out. Do you think that the father should have to justify himself, or should CPS just stay out of it? If not, then who protects the kid? Should they leave the kid with the family while they take a few weeks to investigate, or take him immediately and then figure it out afterward?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius, in the case which you posit, the kid has already been slugged i the face and knocked out. How does intevention by CPS AFTER THE FACT equal “protection?”

              • Because it takes the child out of a situation where that is likely to happen again. It prevents future reassurances.

        • Common Man says:

          Mathius;

          You are riding a very fine wire here. Where do you draw the line on abuse? Should all obese children and sexually abused children be remove from the family unit and placed into state care? What degree or measurement should we use?

          My sife is a Special Education teacher in Flint, MI. She has a classroom of 15 kids ranging from 3rd to 6th grade, and everone of them sporting an IQ of less than 65.

          The majority of those kids have 1 or less parents, the majority of those parent(s) are unemployed, and a lot of those kids are also burdened with some other disability.

          As such there are very few weeks in the school year that don’t involve kids with bruises, cuts and/or stories that in your mind would warrant CPS.

          I can tell you that a lot of the causes are conditional to the environment these kids live in, and the state of their mental abilities. They don’t live in a family unit like yours or mine. They don’t spend their non-school hours playing stick ball or skateboarding. They are not taught the same standards that you and I have been taught. Their world is entirely different than most of us.

          Therefore their lives need to be managed by a different set of standards. And yes it is unfortunate that those standards are different, but such is life.

          It is not just to mandate your rules/standards on another because you believe your rules/standards to be superior.

          CM

          • Yes, without a doubt, ALL sexually abused children should be removed from their parents. That is not even a close call. What is a close call is what constitutes sexual abuse. In the case of forcing your children to watch porn on one occassion, albeit heinous, may not rise to the level of sexual abuse. This is a much trickier question.

          • I’m not saying mine are better. In fact, I’m specifically refusing to lay out clear guideline.

            Regardless of the children’s mental abilities, regardless of how few parents they have, regardless of their activities, and regardless of how you find out about the abuse. I am just basing this on the parents’ actions. If the parents are abusing the children then the children should be taken away. If there is legitimate suspicion, the children should be taken away and then returned if the suspicion is found to be baseless.

            Your wife’s kids show up with a bruise, then your wife reports it, then CPS looks at it and says immediately (that kid over there hitting his head against the wall? I have no reason to believe this is the parent’s fault) – Emilius used to work with autistic kids, so I have some understanding of the subject as well. So the matter is dropped.

            There needs to be legitimate cause for concern, just having a bruise is meaningless – kids get bruises.

            But the children come first, and we should take their health and well-being as our highest priority. Over and beyond the rights of the parents.

            • Common Man says:

              Mathius;

              But you are laying out clear guidelines. If there is ‘percieved’ abuse, then by your standards the state steps in, the parent(s) are percieved guilty and the state now determines the outcome.

              This standard entitles the state to enforce their rules and render an action as they chose. There is no trial, no due-process or investigation prior to the child being removed and that kind sir is TYRANNY

              BTW: How is a teacher suppose to deal with a disruptive or abusive child in the classroom when the teacher knows that any word of that childs actions to the parent(s) will result in the child being excessively disaplined at home. My wife has had to deal with this a number of times and in some cases she chooses not to inform the parent(s).

              BTW/P.S. Children removed from the family unit and placed in foster care are not always better off.

              CM

      • I completely agree with Mathius on this point. Always err on the side of protecting a child, for a child is generally unable to adequately protect himself.

        Of course a system of reporting any ‘suspicious’ mark can lead to some abuses, such as the situation which you bring up of intimidating a remark. This should not be tolerated and the offending worker should be dismissed.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Jaybee,

          YOU as an INDIVIDUAL can choose to always err on the side of protecting the child. However, we have passed this PERSONAL responsibilty off onto an IMPERSONAL government agency, which is why we have so many illogical problems like the one described in this article today.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “if a minor is a human being with all the attendant rights, why may parents force them to do anything at all, ever? When do they lose that power? And more interestingly, at what point do outside forces (neighbors, child protective services, non-custodial ex-wives, complete strangers) gain the right and/or obligation to intervene?”

      Yes, a minor is a human being with all the attendant rights. However, it is generally understood that children below a certain age lack the capacity to prevent themselves from harming themselves or others inadvertantly (and even sometimes purposely).

      Therefore, a parent has the right and an OBLIGATION to instruct the child in matters of behavior, decorum, safety, and a multitude of other things about which the child has no innate knowledge.

      You see, at birth, the brain is largely “empty”, but it has a TREMENDOUS capacity to learn, especially from birth to age 5, and it still has a huge capacity for learning up until adulthood. During this time, it is the duty and responsibility of the parent to teach that child the skills that the child will need in order to become a successful adult. It is also the duty of the parent to protect the child from harm. It is also the duty of the parent to correct the behavior of the child, in order to teach the child that others have rights as well, and it is unacceptable to infringe upon the rights of others.

      Other family members, friends, neighbors, etc. have the responsibility to intervene ON BEHALF OF the child when a parent is obviously doing something contrary to his/her own duties and responsibilities towards the child.

      CPS is a government agency. Government agencies have no “rights”, so at no time is intervention by CPS desireable. How many times have you heard someone say, “I don’t have the right to tell someone else how to raise their own kids!” That is a true statement. However, if a parent is doing something that is genuinely harmful to a child, you MAY INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD. You are not REQUIRED TO intervene, but you MAY.

      CPS is the product of lazy people who suffer from moral relativism. Basically what people did was say, “I don’t have the right to tell someone else how to raise their kids, so lets create a government agency to do it instead!”

  3. Mrs. Weapon says:

    Good to see you Charlie. When is your book coming out? You know I am dying to read it. Our conversation in Wilmington was great and I never did get to thank you for it. Weapon and I never expected to have an hour conversation that day but it was nice to just talk to people. Please tell your wife I said hello. Any thoughts of still moving? We would love you guys to be down here!!!

    On to the topic….2 points I would like to express…..1. We don’t know why he showed this “pornography” to his child. Maybe his child is already sexually active (scary but could be true) and the father was trying to show the difference between sex and making love. I know we don’t want to admit it but their are 10 year old kids having sex. Maybe the father felt this was the best way to explain what he is trying to explain. My second point is that the father had custody of these kids. I have a great friend who is going thru a divorce and her soon to be x would say ANYTHING to get custody of their little girl. The article does not explain why he had custody. Most states will automatically award custody to the mother unless she proves to the court that she is “unfit to parent”. Lots of specifics of this case are missing. With the information we have, I have to agree that I DO NOT want the government to decide what my son gets to watch. There are many situations where I will walk into the room of WeaponSon and am shocked by the XBox games he is playing. They are violent and gross and turn my stomach….but WeaponSon is 15. He doesn’t play these games and really think he can go out and kill someone for points (I know this for a fact. We talk about it ALL the time so I don’t freak out as Mrs. Weapon). We have to step back and realize the kids today are not like us as kids. We could go anywhere and not come back for 8 hours. If WeaponSon is gone for 2 hours, I have a heart attack wondering if he is okay. It is a different world today.

    • Hello, Mrs. Weapon!

      We are probably going to move down there as soon as Ann Marie gets her RN. She’s an amazing tomata (woman). She works full time; goes to school full time and somehow puts up with me. We hear NC is the place to go for all things medicinal (nursing included) and she loves the weather and we both loved what we saw … and, my old guitarist (the guy I got to play with at the Cape Fear blues festival, lives there).

      Hope all is well by you. The new book comes out in April but I forewarn all that I write hardboiled fiction (some violence and very political incorrect (i.e., tomata = woman, etc.) … but reviewers are usually very positive.

      Yes, the conversation was great and its what we both miss living in Joisey these days (our schedules really do preclude us from social time–blogs help that, thank god) and we look forward to getting rid of this insane work commute (1:45 one way every day).

      All best to you and Mr. Weapon!

  4. USWeapon:

    I agree with your analysis. The government should stay out of this. As you point out, there are other ways for the ex-wife to deal with the matter. I am opposed to censorship. In the U.S. we have some puritan beliefs that are still with us. I doubt this would be an issue in Europe where pornography is probably on T.V. and isn’t thought about by anyone.

  5. This country is seriously messed up with its perception of raising children and teaching them about sex. You got the parents that don’t want to talk about it with their children and want the school to teach them. You got parents that don’t want their children to be taught anything but “abstinence only” to the kids in school, and you got parents that don’t care what their children do.

    To not teach kids anything about sex is naïve and reckless. My school is where I learned what sex was and I think they did a good job. They taught about the dangers of unprotected sex, pregnancy and STDs. These are things that everybody should know because now you hear about so many young people having risky intercourse and getting pregnant and STDs. You hear so many reports about minorities, immigrants, and sheltered children that are the ones that end up in the worst situations because no one ever taught them anything. That being said, sexual education is necessary and should be done in schools (also at home) because not everyone will be taught at home.

    The problem is if they revoke the law in Texas then you will get people arrested for trying to teach their kids about the dangers. Also then does that apply to teachers trying to discuss anything about sexual education? I can easily see this nanny state getting to the point where someone could be prosecuted because someone’s little kid overheard you say the f word in public. If you change the law in Texas to allow it if it is sexual education then you have to define what constitutes education and what is porn, I am sure that won’t end well because you pay a lawyer enough and they will argue anything.

    • Naten…..not to fear. The law will not be changed here. It has been tried already and it was unsuccessful, 4 times so far…and each time by a wider margin.

  6. Good Day Everyone,

    I have always been a big believer in teaching sex education in school ( and hopefully at home). I think not doing this is just a road we do not need to be on. Some kids dont get taught anything at home from their folks. My education came from both. I was taught the moral and adult responability that goes with sex, along with the disease, babies etc. I grew up in the 70’s & 80’s, so the fear of AIDS pretty overuled any fear my family had about talking to me.
    I not a big believer in censorship, for a couple reasons. Who decides whats good or bad, and there will always be someone who goes too far with it. What I see as art, someone else might be grossed out on.
    Like Mrs. Weapon I am grossed out at the games that kids play now. So violent to me. But I think that parenting is where it draws the line. To me that is where this comes and ends the arguement. I dont know why this man is showing his kids porn. I do hope there is a reason behind it. I think parents need to be parrents. Expecting the laws to jump in everytime is not going to save anyone.

    Ellen

    • Common Man says:

      Ellen;

      I am interested in knowing at what age should the schools get involved, what (in your oppinion) should be taught, and should the parent be allowed to preclude their child if they decide so?

      CM

      • Good Day Common

        I had my class in 7th grade,right around the puberty time. So around that age I would be okay with. Much younger and I think it will not really stick. Much older and well it might be too late for some. There was different class for the girls and boys and it was done by the school nurse. I would be okay with parents opting out if they choose to. If a parent wants to be a parent- Great! I think that the classes are needed for those who dont always do what they should as parents.
        My mom taught me what I need to know, but she figured a extra lesson from school wouldnt hurt me either.

    • Ellen

      I have no problem with sex Ed at school as long as there is parental notification and a op out for parents that don’t want their children taught in school. How did we as parents and a society surrender OUR responsibility for the development and nurturing of our children is beyond me. Functioning families are the solution to the majority of the problems of this country not government intervention.

  7. Good morning. Do not jump to conclusions too fast here. There are two issues and it is, of course, on the news here. As it is turning out, this is not the first time this woman has brought up the issue where her kids were concerned. There have also been drug allegations and infidelity allegations and physical abuse allegations in this same case. This is not the first time she has tried something. None of the other allegations panned out to be true. Child protective services has investigated….three times….according to the news source and there have been no charges filed in either of those cases and each time the children were taken away and brought back. Wonder how that affects the kids rationale?

    That being said, Texas has two issues: (1) this is part of the bible belt in some areas. (enough said) and (2) Texas, indeed, has a law on the books pertaining to this. The purpose of the law was to keep the bible thumpers (yes, I am not PC nor will be) and the government from regulating morality. That was the purpose of the law. We pride ourselves on being independent but that is not to say we do not have our detractors and Liberal/progressive types here that want a law to regulate everything. We, Texas, has been forced, on occasion, to write laws to protect freedoms that “well meaning” (notice the quotes) outsiders sought to take away. An oxymoron, to be sure, but never the less, a truth.

    Now, with that being said….I have disagreed with CPS and their broad sword anyway. Even here, anyone can file a charge and the recipient is guilty until proven innocent and that is a tragedy. On the other side, I have seen and read about actual child abuse situations where it actually existed. Herein lies the problem. I surmise that the actual issues of child abuse are the exception and not the rule and is totally subjective. Is pornography an abuse issue? I suppose it could be, but who makes the call on this? I believe in spanking a child…but some of you probably think that is abuse. I believe in corporal punishment in schools…I had “licks’ once in junior high and I vowed never again and it did not happen again. I am not a serial killer or child molester as a result. I simply did not break the rules again that allowed the licks in the first place. But some of you will say it is totally up to the parent to discipline and not a school. Again, very subjective.

    How many countries are out there where kids roam the streets at 8 and 9, dig in garbage cans, work as prostitutes at age 11 and 12, parents hire them out for labor to supplement incomes….etc. It happens all over and still happens in countries supposedly “avant garde”. So, where do we legislate morality???? Or do we legislate morality?

    This is a tough call. I have no place in my heart for any parent that would abuse a child. Where I have the problem is….what is termed “child abuse”. Burning with a lighter? Yes. Locking a child in chains? Yes. Spanking a child? No. Yelling at a child? No. Where is it drawn? tough questions and tough answers as it is all subjective and 10,000 angels sitting on ones shoulder swearing that they are right…does not make it so.

    Showing a child pornography? Wow…. I would not do that but that is my moral code. Do I have a right to say my next door neighbor cannot do that? …..No, I don’t.

    • Also consider where Randall County Texas is……we are talking the belt buckle of the bible belt out there. West Texas…very rural, very independent, and strong belief in moral values and their values are not “progressive”. The Law West of the Pecos comes to mind. Very strong belief in capital punishment, taking care of family and women, still very western, and still wear six guns on the hips.

    • Morning, D,

      As I mentioned above, the onus in these cases has to be on the parents. If the state investigates before removing the child, the abuse can continue (or even escalate), but if it turns out that there is not abuse, the child can be returned. Both errors would be bad, but one is worse, no?

      I have an objection to you and USW’s classification of the bible-thumpers who would regulate morality as liberals. The are the christian right. They vote with the Republicans. They raise funds for conservative candidates. I am a liberal, and I do not share their views. Simply because they are on the wrong side of the debate does not put them in my camp. You might argue that they are statists, but that does not make them liberals (Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “suitable for a free man”) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom), it simply makes them conservative statists (Conservatism (from Latin: conservare = “save” or “preserve”) is the diverse political and social philosophy that supports tradition and the status quo, or that calls for a return to the values and society of an earlier age). The Christian Right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right ) are not liberals – they want a return to antiquated societal values (enforced by law) and are against the individual freedoms for which true liberalism stands (as opposed to the Democratic Party’s version of liberalism).

      Whether the ex-wife is lying or abusing the system is irrelevant, as are the specific details of this particular case. What is more interesting is the question of at what point is it ok for the state to intervene, and as you’ve stated, that is a tough question..

      • USW did say they were conservatives but likened them to liberals because “we find that in this situation, it would be conservatives arguing FOR government intrusion into the home.”

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The confusion comes in because the media defines “those that would use the power of government to enforce morality” as “Conservative”.

          In reality, they are just what Kent calls “Right-Socialist” because they favor a strong state just as much as the “Left-Socialist”. They merely want to have the State make and enforce THEIR LAWS as opposed to the “Left-Socialist” laws.

          • See, that classification works for me. I just don’t like them being called “liberals/progressives”

      • Yes, they are very conservative out there but are very much for laws that would regulate morality….this is a liberal bend, in my opinion. However, Randall County is very conservative but does not align with the religious right, per my definition. They do NOT align with the Right Wing Christian Evangelical Movement at all…but they do vote overwhelmingly for conservative issues…low taxes, etc. They are independent out there. Not independent voters but independent in thinking….they do not want government in their lives at all. Hell, that is ranching country.

        They catch a cattle rustler….it is western justice…not calling the police. They will still drag them across cactus naked, pour salt in the wounds, hang them by the neck until breathing is no option…and then leave them for the food chain. But heaven forbid a Billy Graham showing up or a Rush Limbaugh..they won’t have it.

        But your exception is well taken. Thank you.

      • Mathius,

        As Naten said, I clearly called them conservatives in my article. When I think of religious folks wanting religious laws to rule the land I think of the christian far right. And I don’t like their outlook any more than the far left.

        • Apologies.. I must have gotten my signals crossed.. it happens sometimes. Maybe I’m getting senile..

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Let us say that most of us probably reasonably agree that showing graphic pornography to 8 and 9-year old girls is at least in bad taste. The article claims that the father MADE the girls watch it on the internet. My question is, how do we define “he MADE them do it?” Did he say, “hey girls, come and watch this?” or did he threaten some sort of punishment if they did not? Regardless, most of us probably agree that showing porn to 8 and 9-year olds is extremely poor judgement.

    Secondly, why is it that the knee-jerk right-socialist Statist “Conservatives” suddenly want to put the State right in the middle of something when it involves sex or morals or whatever. Ridiculous. In this particular case, all the ex-wife needs to do is say, “Look ASSHOLE, you are NOT to show that sort of material to OUR daughters, and if you think that they need to be educated about sex, then that is something WE need to discuss and WE can decide how to go about that. Show them that kind of crap again and it will be a COLD DAY IN HELL before they come to visit you again!”

    Now, of course, since they are divorced and “share custody” this raises other issues should she refuse to let the girls see their father. However, this is the result of the State being in the marriage defining/sanctioning business in the first place.

    The point is, this is something that can and should be worked out between the parents without any State involvement required.

    • Secondly, why is it that the knee-jerk right-socialist Statist “Conservatives” suddenly want to put the State right in the middle of something when it involves sex or morals or whatever. Ridiculous.

      I have often wondered that myself. But they are conservatives. As I said above, look at the definition of conservatism (Conservatism (from Latin: conservare = “save” or “preserve”) is the diverse political and social philosophy that supports tradition and the status quo, or that calls for a return to the values and society of an earlier age). That is exactly what they are. You conflate conservatism with small-government-ism, and liberalism with large-government-ism.

      The point is, this is something that can and should be worked out between the parents without any State involvement required.

      Without the state, what recourse does she have? If he says, this is what I want to show them, and she believes it to be detrimental, how can she stop him? If he were letting them play in a rye field near a cliff, how could she stop him without the ability to appeal to governmental intervention?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        This is mainly because in modern times we have ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS OF LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE WHICH ARE GOOFY.

        Perhaps this is why I prefer Kent’s terms of “Left-Statist”, “Right-Statist”, “Libertarian”, “Anarchist” and the like. I feel like those terms far more accurately describe what is going on today.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        Why do you assume people are completely powerless and require State intervention to solve even the simplest of problems?

        Is your FIRST REACTION when you are faced with any sort of conflict whatsoever to call the cops or some other State agency? I sure hope not!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Oh, and by the way, she stops him by saying, “If they tell me you have shown them that kind of crap again, it is going to be a cold day in hell before you see our daughters again!”. Pretty simple, no?

          • Sounds simple. But he has the children in his (current) custody. How does she get them back? Absent the state, if he claims sole custody, or the right to do with them as he pleases, how can she stop him? Should she break into his house in the middle of the night and kidnap them? Try to pick them up after school before he does? Can he not do the same thing? If she says “you showed them porn, I’m not letting you see them again,” then
            (A) how does she have the right to deny him visitation of his children?
            (B) how can she stop him from kidnapping them in the park and moving to Bucharest?
            (C) why does she get to unilaterally define what is and isn’t appropriate?
            (D) what decisions must be made jointly?
            (E) if/when they disagree, who makes the decisions?

            In an acrimonious divorce, how do the parents settle a custody or child-rearing dispute absent an overruling party?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius,

              Right now, we have a lot of this confusion merely because the State has put itself in the marriage (and divorce) business.

              As a responsible parent, the mother has EVERY RIGHT to remove the children from what she deems to be a harmful situation. It DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE STATE SAYS THE RIGHTS OF THE FATHER ARE.

              If the mother feels that the rights of the children are being violated by the father, then it is HER RIGHT to INTERVENE ON THEIR BEHALF to remove them from the situation.

              The complications you bring up are not NATURAL complications, they are STATE IMPOSED complications. This is why State imposition is not desireable when it comes to matters of family.

              • So if the mother feels that the father is harmful to the child, she can grab the child and run for it? Why should she get to decide? If she thinks letting the kid stay up too late is harmful, she can simply take the child away and refuse to let him see his father? It doesn’t matter that the father disagrees?

                What if the father feels the same way about the mother?

                What if the divorce was nasty and the mother thinks the father would be a bad roll model? And the father thinks the mother is too soft and the kid needs discipline? She thinks he spends too much time at work? He thinks she doesn’t have enough money? He’s a jerk? She’s an idiot?

                How do they settle it? Is it simply a question of who can grab the kid first and move to another state?

              • In short, the question is: why does her opinion override his opinion? What makes her rights, in this case, superior to his?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                It is fun how you enjoy over-compicating matters such as this.

                First of all, you must realize that EVEN IN A HEAVILY STATE-CONTROLLED SOCIETY, MOST OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE STILL UNANSWERABLE.

                You are living the lie that by having a large and controlling State, you will prevent the kinds of problems and questions which you are positing.

                I assure you, having a large and powerful State WILL NOT IN ANY WAY RESOLVE THESE QUESTIONS.

                So, my point to you is, since having a large and powerful state does absolutely nothing to resovle these questions, and not having any state whatsoever still does not resolve each and every hypothetical you propose, why is having arbitrary rules imposed upon you PREFERABLE to NOT having arbitrary rules imposed upon you?

                I am sure you do not like that answer, because you are somehow convinced that Statism can solve all problems for all people and Freedom cannot.

                You are wrong. Statism cannot solve all problems for all people, and Freedom cannot solve all problems for all people either.

                Your premise that Statism is preferable to Freedom because Statism can solve all of our problems is a FAULTY PREMISE.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Also Mathius, no one’s rights, BY DEFINITON, can ever be “superior” to anyone else’s rights.

                You yourself claim that the best thing to do is to put the health and safety of the children first, correct?

                So, if the wife genuinely feels that the RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN are being violated, or that they are being harmed in any way, she may INTERVENE ON THEIR BEHALF to get them out of the harmful situation.

                Her intervention does not indicate that any one person’s rights are superior or inferior to the rights of any other person.

                The mother can remove the children from the custody of the father, because he has wilfully harmed them while they are in his care. He has violated THEIR rights, and the mother is intervening on their behalf in order to protect them.

                Of course, it is POSSIBLE that the mother could merely CLAIM that the father was harming the children when in reality he was not. In that case, if she removed the children from his custody, she would be doing so under FALSE PRETENSES.

        • No, I try to resolve my own issues generally. But here you have two people who have exactly equal rights and different and mutually exclusive wishes for how to exercise them.

          I would actually be interested in our pirate friend’s opinion on this.. If the parents are separated, who gets the kid if they both want full custody. If they agree to joint custody, who gets to make the decisions which affect a period longer than your custodial session? (that is, if you have custody on Monday, you can decide how late they can stay up, but can you unilaterally make a decision that will affect the child on Tuesday when it’s the other parent’s turn – ie getting a tattoo)?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            If the father and the mother are separated or divorced and they cannot agree upon a consistent set of rules governing the care and behavior of their children, they are doomed to a life of conflict between one another.

            For example, let us say that we agree that tattoos cannot legitimately be labeled as “harm” (and yes, I realize that we COULD debate that since tattoos with an unclean needle could cause hepatitis or aids or something), but for the sake of this discussion, assume that the tattoo would be done with a perfectly clean needle and that the child WANTED to have a tatoo.

            One parent doesn’t mind if the kid gets a tattoo. One parent absolutely forbids the kid from gettng a tattoo. One day, while staying with Dad (who doesn’t care), the kid goes out and gets a tattoo. Mom is livid and absolutely blows up on dad, and threatens to never let him see the child again.

            One problem… the child was not harmed in any way, and the rights of the child were not violated. Mom doesn’t really have a leg to stand on in this case.

            This is why it is important for parents to discuss and decide how to raise children BEFORE THEY HAVE ANY.

            Also note, in the “case of the tattooed teen” described above, the presence or absence of an “all-powerful State” makes absolutely no difference in the occurance or the outcome.

            • But the mother thinks there’s a harm. You see, what you didn’t notice was that the tattoo was on the neck. This will make it harder for the child to get a job later on.

              The mother considers this harmful to the child. Not as bad as other possibilities, but still harm. Now the mother has a leg to stand on.

              And the child wants to get one on the face. If the mother leaves the child with the father, the child will get the face tattoo and there will be more harm.

              So now what? The mother says there’s harm, the father disagrees and we’re back where we started. Who gets to make the decisions? Is it the father just because the mother can’t stop him?

    • 2 questions off the top of my head:

      1. Why does the Father have custody of the girls, and why isn’t the mom being prosecuted for making false statements to CPS?

      2. What ever happened to the schools that wanted to teach 5-year-olds about masturbation and alternative lifestyles?

  9. Common Man says:

    All;

    Many have expressed their thoughts and beliefs relative to ‘child abuse’ these past couple days, and along with that, when and where the state should get involved.

    I think we should first understand the potential ramifications of any government involvment when dealing with an issue like this, or any issue for that matter.

    Currently we are dealing with an out-of-control regime which has continuously demonstrated that they have no concern for our rights, or the documents that support them. This regime, and those before it, are determined to do things as they percieve they should be done.

    Along with that, this regime, and those before it, utilizes any and all means it can to support their objectives; and their objective is clearly “control”.

    If they were really only concerned with ensuring the safety of the children in either of the senerios discussed yesterday and today, then an investigation, trial and judgement would take place just like any other court case. How many cases like this take place each and every day, but never make it passed the cutting room floor of the media? Why did these two cases get special attention? If we look at the example USW provided today we see a lone individual creating enough noise to get some grease, and a political faction working to change an existing law. How about the ‘cross’ story out west, why did that one get so much press? Could it be that some left-wing group or political entitiy saw another opportunity to chastize religous freedom?

    Who dedides what gets publisized and made national and why?

    The real issue is that politics and policy wind up driving the entire effort, and the children are used as pawns to further a political endeavor. Yes, maybe there is some real concern expressed by those pressing the issue, but in most of these publisized events those pushing the issue are working to set another precident to further their ‘control’.

    Child abuse, whether it be food or sex related is a concern, just as is a proper education. Involving the government in any of those areas invites additional control, and very possibly total control.

    Because we are dealing with an increasingly powerful element, we must understand that we cannot defeat it by providing it with more fuel.

    It’s all about control, power and greed, and as far from protecting individual rights as it can be.

    They are the government, but they are NOT here to help!!

    CM

  10. Seems pretty simple to me, and I agree with some others here. The only issue should be the dispute between the parents. If the judge deciding custody finds evidence of what they feel is inappropriate, that is where this is settled. I cannot agree on any state deciding what a parent can show their own children.

    And their is reason to take accusations with a grain of salt.

    John Doggett John N. Doggett The insane war against teachers
    Posted: March 24, 2000

    Who taught you how to read, write and do math? I bet it was a teacher. Who taught you about science, history and music? Sounds like the work of a teacher to me, but you know, a very strange thing is happening in America. Instead of appreciating and supporting the men and women who train our children, we are allowing irresponsible children and parents to attack them.

    On Tuesday, USA Today published a very disturbing story by reporter Scott Bowles about the explosion of false misconduct reports against teachers. Let me share part of this story with you.

    In Chicago, a 9-year-old elementary school girl pays fellow students $1 bribes to accuse a substitute teacher of sexual abuse.

    In Florida, a social studies teacher is accused by a high school boy of molesting him during a field trip. The teacher is suspended from his job without pay for the duration of an 11-month investigation.

    And in Maryland, seven sixth-graders tell police that a gym teacher fondled girls and stared at their breasts in the school locker room.

    In each incident, police say, the children made up the stories to punish their teachers for disciplining or flunking them.

    Each time, the teacher was yanked from the classroom until exonerated by police. Educators say these and other cases underscore a troubling trend in American schools.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=830

  11. Kristian Stout says:

    Wow, this subject cuts close. I’m reading all of you guys debates about this and thinking to myself, ok, they really need to get a grip. Mathius said one thing that made total sense though, you always err on the side of the child unless or until you have a damned good reason not to. I say this because maybe, just maybe, had someone done that for me I wouldn’t have had to deal with the abuse that I dealt with. I may not have had the issues that I had as a young woman and maybe, just maybe, I would have been a happier child.

    Part of the abuse that I suffered was being made to watch porn while my abuser touched me. That scarred me in a lot of ways. Porn was and is a big issue for me. You’re all right, there is a line and that line is drawn with common sense. You don’t show your 8 & 9 year old daughters porn, soft or hard core, for any reason. There are too many tools out there to teach sex education that makes using porn unneccessary.

    • Thank you Kristen, for the support. And I’m sorry to hear about your experiences.

      Children take priority, and when it come to these issues, I say shoot first and ask questions later.

      • Kristian Stout says:

        You betcha!

      • Mathius says: I say shoot first and ask questions later.

        Ahhhh….. a man after my own heart…if you believe that here, then to be consistent, should you not believe that everywhere?

        (Pickin’ on ya)

        🙂

        • Naw… I’m not one who argues that there no shades of gray. I don’t like having to shoot first and ask questions later, but I don’t see a way around it.

          I know when I wrote that that someone would call me on it. Alas!

          Thanks, Commander

    • Kris,

      Sorry about what you went through. Makes me think about Forrest Gump, “sometimes, there are just not enough rocks”.

      Early in our marriage, I made sure my wife was comfortable and profecient with firearms including getting a Concealed Carry Permit. She has a Glock as well as other pistols.

      After reading “The Last Undercover”, written by the FBI agent who took down
      NAMBLA, my wife and I discussed it a little. I felt she would not like reading the book because of the contents. This led to discussion of someone we know who’s ex. molested their children, and is awaiting trial. Her remark was, “if that had been you and our children, there wouldn’t be any trial. I would have been in fear of my life, and you would be dead.”
      Kinda scary, her looking directly into my eyes saying that. But she won’t shoot me unless I deserve it. And I would have it no other way.

      • Kristian Stout says:

        When I had children of my own, both daughters, I made it very clear to my dad that if either of my children came to me and told me that grandpa had touched them That I would drop him where he stood, no questions asked. I think that he believed me because he was very careful never to be alone with my children. My girls know what happened to me because I made it a point to tell them and to make sure they understood they could always come to me with anything. I think that I raised to very well adjusted girls. They are more self assured and confident than I was at their ages. I’m very proud of them.

        • You come off as a well rounded person, so its not a surprise if your kids turn out well. Doesn’t mean it was easy either.

          I think it’s a shame, how many battered women’s shelters there are, because it shows a failure of our society. I know a few cops, and several of them have talked about their frustration when an abused woman returns to her “man” or refuses to press charges. Some problems cannot be fixed by society or especially the government. If a person will not stand up for themselves or their children enough to testify in court, how can any laws protect them?

        • Bottom Line says:

          Kristian,

          I’d like to say that I admire your courage in being so candid about your experiences.

          Further, I am glad to see that you have broken the cycle.

          Kudos Ms. Stout.

          • Kristian Stout says:

            I’ve been asked many times if I would change anything that happened and this is going to sound crazy, but no, I wouldn’t. If I did then I wouldn’t be who I am today. I’ve learned how to use it to help others over the years and that makes it a little easier to live with it.

            For a very long time though, it messed me up. Alot. The one thing that children in those circumstances ask themselves is, Why? It took me a very long time to figure out there is no answer to that question. I’ve been able to help kids in that situation maybe not ask that question so much and to help them understand they didn’t do anything wrong. That’s another big question they have, What did I do wrong. It suck wide and long that they even have to go through that but if I can help I will. I think that may be what I’m here for.

            • Bottom Line says:

              I hear ya. I’d like to get a PHD in Child Psychology/Early Childhood Development. I know what it means to be that troubled kid from a screwed up home trying to figure it all out. Helping those in that position would be rewarding.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Kristian Stout – “Part of the abuse that I suffered was being made to watch porn while my abuser touched me. That scarred me in a lot of ways. Porn was and is a big issue for me.”

      Just as a guess…

      I’d say that you may very well have a type of “diassociative disorder”.

      When having a traumatic experience, as a defensive mechanism, the mind reacts by disassociating from the experience. Your mind goes elsewhere…like hypnotism. Reality is stuffed/supressed into the subconcious memory. When you see porn, you are forced to recall and find yourself disturbed and distracted.

      Pornography was used as a tool to abuse you. You will always, at some level, associate porn with abuse. You were literally hypnotically programmed to dislike porn.

      Pornography is one of your triggers.

      How close am I?

      Just tell me to shut up if I’m being intrusive.

  12. CanadianFox says:

    I intend to put a new twist on this argument. The State was wrong back in the 1970’s for ever getting involved in the first place with this “law” (and allowing some pandering politician a “feather in his political cap). They should have done what the State should do now. Sit the two “adults” down and tell them to figure it out on their own. This is about priorities. A local state or federal government should never involve themselves in this type of a personal dispute on a topic that is impossible to define.

  13. And Where Exactly IS the Line Between Parents and Government?

    Rephrase the question ‘properly’ and the answer is clear.

    “And where exactly is the line between Parents and Evil?”

    See – now it is easy to figure out….

    • Mr. Flag,

      Perhaps you could address a question I had above:

      I would actually be interested in our pirate friend’s opinion on this.. If the parents are separated, who gets the kid if they both want full custody. If they agree to joint custody, who gets to make the decisions which affect a period longer than your custodial session? (that is, if you have custody on Monday, you can decide how late they can stay up, but can you unilaterally make a decision that will affect the child on Tuesday when it’s the other parent’s turn – ie getting a tattoo)?

      How does your vision of society handle this?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I am not BF, but I will take a shot at this nonetheless.

        In a free society, if a man and a woman choose to marry, live together, or even live in completely separate places, and they choose to bring a child or children into the world, both parents must assume equal responsibility for raising that child. Even if the two adults later decide that they hate each other, they must still assume equal responsibilty for raising their child(ren).

        This means that even if they suddenly decide that they cannot stand each other, they must agree on the terms of who has custody of the child when, and what the rules are for raising that child AT ALL TIMES.

        One of the most harmful things you can do to a child when the parents are separated or divorced is have 2 completely different sets of rules for the same child depending on which parent has custody at the time. This gives the child the impression that rules are totally arbitrary and have no basis in reason and logic. It is also a trick that parents use to pit the child against one parent or the other. (“But Daddy lets me do THIS when I am at HIS house!”)

        So, communication is imperative, both PRIOR to bringing any children into the world, and AFTER you have brought a child into the world, because both parents must agree upon a consistent set of rules for the child and for each other that will ensure the safety and well-being of the child.

        Now, I think that the REAL question you had was probably, “Ok, but in a free society, how do you ENFORCE this, and MAKE SURE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS?”

        The answer to that question is, you can’t. The thing you must realize however, is that in a State-run society there is NOTHING you can do to MAKE SURE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS either.

        You see, most people make the error in judgement that with a large and powerful state, you can PREVENT EVIL better than you can without a large and powerful state. However, this is merely an illusion. It is a very POWERFUL illusion which most people cannot or will not see through, but it is an illusion nonetheless.

        • Shall I call you Peter Flag or Black Peter?

          It’s easy to say they’re obligated to agree, but they cannot always do so. And, in the event of a difference, one side needs to win out. In the example USW provided, the woman thinks showing the girls porn is harmful and the husband, obviously, does not. So what is her recourse? How can she fix it? How can she stop it?

          If it were something worse, say molestation, she would have the same problem. What recourse does she have to stop it? Can she just steal the child and not let him see her? (nope, that violates his rights as a parent). But with a government, there is a higher power to whom you can appeal. The court will hear arguments (and expert testimony) and facts and evidence and it will make a judgment which is binding by the force of the government.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius, you use the term “steal” where it is wholly inappropriate.

            The woman is the mother to the children, and the man is the father to the children, yes?

            If the mother believes that the children are being harmed and the rights of the children are being violated, she MAY INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN. One possible intervention on their behalf would be to REMOVE THEM FROM THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY ARE BEING HARMED.

            Why do you see that as “Theft” if mommy does it but you see it as “a good thing” if the State does it? That postition makes no sense. If it is “theft” for the mother to take the children out of a harmful situation, then it would CERTAINLY be “theft” for the State to do so as well, no?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “If it were something worse, say molestation, she would have the same problem. What recourse does she have to stop it?”

            There is no problem whatsoever in the case of child molestation. If the father is molesting the children, then CLEARLY he is harming the children AND intiating violence against the non-violent.

            In such a case, the mother can CERTAINLY INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN and get them the hell out of the harmful situation. One of your duties as a parent is to PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM HARM.

            If it is one particular parent who is harming the children, it is the duty of the other parent to get the children out of that situation.

            Let us say, for example, that you and your wife have kids, and one day you discover that your wife has been encouraging your children to touch extremely hot burners on the stove in order to “teach them not to touch hot things”.

            Obviously you are probably not going to think that that is an appropriate method for teaching the children this. Are you going to:

            1. Make sure your children stay away from the hot stove.

            2. Discuss with your wife other methods for teaching your children not to touch hot things.

            3. Get your children out of that situation if your wife continues to encourage them to touch really hot burners on the stove.

            4. Call CPS immediately before even attempting 1, 2, or 3.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “But with a government, there is a higher power to whom you can appeal. The court will hear arguments (and expert testimony) and facts and evidence and it will make a judgment which is binding by the force of the government.”

            Mathius,

            The government is not a “higher power”. Government is composed of people. Certain people do not have a “higher power” than other people simply because certain people choose to call themselves “the government”

            In a free society, there is no reason to think that courts would cease to exist. Free society does not mean “society without laws”, so in a free society, you could still have a trial, based upon the demonstrable fact that the rights of a child had been violated. The court could still have witnesses and expert testimony, and the decision of the court could still be binding, it just wouldn’t work quite the way it does now! (Well actually, right now it generally DOESN’T work, but that is another argument entirely).

            And yes, for the Statist, the decision of a Statist Court is binding by the FORCE of the government. This is self-evident. Government MUST USE FORCE in order to get its way… we all know that already.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Also, humorously:

            Should we call the former lead singer of the Pixies Black Francis or Frank Black?

    • You are a hoot, BF…eccentric….but a hoot, never the less. Have a bodacious day.

  14. Bottom Line says:

    Between the ages of 3-5, children will typically begin to question differences between genders and their behavior patterns. They essentially make the connection between reproductive organs and behavior. They are trying to understand the difference between genders and in turn develop their own gender identity. For girls, this process is called “Electra Conflict”. For boys, it’s called “Oedipus Conflict” It requires both male and female role models, and interaction between the two.

    I.E.: Child – “Mom has one of this and looks like/behaves X. Dad has that and looks like/behaves Y. My part matches mom/dad. I am girl/boy. I should act accordingly”

    Starting at age 3-5 and ending at around 8 yrs. old, little girls get real curous ’bout men(daddy). They wanna know what makes dad tick. It is IMPORTANT that little girls establish a bond with daddy at this age. Daddy needs to BE, EXACTLY how he wants her to veiw men.

    For daddy to reject/abandon/neglect/abuse her and/or mom at this age, is setting her up for life-long problems with her self image, sexuality, and interpersonal relationships.

    Little girl – ” Daddy left/abused me = Daddy doesn’t love me. Daddy left/abused mommy = Daddy doesn’t love mommy. I’m like mommy. Daddy is different than mommy and I. Daddys are abusive. It must be because we’re girls. Girls aren’t worthy. Is it okay to be a girl? I dont like/trust boys, but maybe I wish I was a boy. I’m confused.”

    Result: Lindsay Lohan

    The Thought process/conclusion is entirely different if daddy is a loving father/husband.

    Little girl – ” Daddy is good to me = daddy loves me. Daddy is good to mommy = daddy loves mommy. I’m like mommy. Daddy is different than mommy and I. Daddys give lots of love. It must have something to do with us being girls. Girls are special. I’m glad I am a girl. Mommy is a girl and she is awsome. I wanna be just like mommy. Women like mommy marry good men like daddy. I want to marry a man like daddy too.

    Result: Confident funtional woman, mother, and wife.

    Once daddy has shown little girl that all is well concerning the male gender, she is satisfied and shifts her focus back to mommy. She needs to know how to be a woman(like mommy). At around the same time she is beginning the early stages of independant reason. From now until womanhood, and especially during puberty, she will progressively become more and more curious about the finer points of womanhood(including sexuality). This is traditionally taught by mom, and confirmed by dad’s/brother’s/boyfriend’s relative behavior and additude toward women.

    If she starts to ask questions about sex at age 9, then she is probably ready to start to understand sexuality.

    Q: Did the little girls ask what an orgie was? Were they curious about porn?

    It wouldn’t surprise me if they did. This isn’t uncommon of children that age.

    Personally, I don’t think that dad showing them porn is the best way to go about teaching them, but that is something that should be left to the parents.

    Not me.
    Not you.
    Not the government.

    But the parents are in conflict with each other, …which is the root of the whole problem. And it probably started the moment they first made eye contact.

    Did they discuss having children and how they would raise them, before they actually started making them? Did they discuss which principles, values, morals to teach? Did they discuss and agree on any of these type of things before getting married and having children? Were they really right for each other? Do they make a good team?

    My guess is no.

    Q: When did they meet?
    When did they get marry?
    When was the oldest child concieved?
    Did it happen in this order?

    A: Probably not.

    The conflict in the family, separation, court proceedings, custody battle, financial difficulties, and subsequent stress typical of a divorce has probably done more harm to those little girls than showing them porn.

    Court intervention does no good.

    It cannot correct the inability of the parents to get it right.

    The court should not try to be “THE CATCHER IN THE RYE”

    It is the responsibility of the parents to keep their kids away from the cliff.

    My answer: Stop bitching lady. It isn’t the court’s fault, right, or responsibility. It’s a family matter. Clean up your own mess. You shouldn’t have picked a man like your daddy.

  15. Off topic, but someone just sent me this link, and I will be having nightmares tonight.. enjoy..

    (not for the faint of heart..)
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      You see Mathius, the US Debt has already “gone over the cliff”.

      Where was the State that was supposed to be watching and preventing it from going over the cliff?

      The reason, at this point, that the government is willing to continue printing and spending more and more money, is that the government realizes that we already passed the point of no return.

      There is absolutely no policy whatsoever that the government can now engage in order to bring the situation safely back under control. In response, the government has instead said, “since it is gonna blow up anyway, let’s spend spend spend like there is no tomorrow, because there may not be!”

      So now, what we have, is the government promising anything and everything to anyone and everyone in order to attempt to protect its LEGITIMACY. By doing this, the government hopes that when things finally implode, people will still trust government to clean up after the mess.

      HOPEFULLY enough people are aware that it is the government that CREATED the mess, and the government is IN NO WAY QUALIFIED to clean up after itself… it has no idea how to do so.

      • I just spoke to my boss. (he’s a big fan of Mises). His assessment is that you have three options:

        1. Leave the country and disavow the debt – it’s not your, it’s the government’s – their problem.

        2. Go off the books. Everything in cash deals, all savings in gold and/or other non-fiat valuables. Pay no taxes, admit no savings. When the collapse comes, you’ll just sail through unscathed.

        3. Suck it up, let the government keep taking your money, and then lose everything when the dollar collapses.

        I feel he would be popular with a few people here. I, however, say “things ain’t so bad.” One of us is right, let’s see who it is.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Your boss is a very wise man.

          I HOPE that your boss is wrong.

          All EVIDENCE points to him being right.

          It is going to take ALMOST IMMEDIATE and FUNDAMENTAL change in order to avert disaster.

          I do not think that our country is currently capable of CHOOSING immediate and fundamental change anymore.

          Choosing immediate and fundamental change would be painful.

          Having fundamental change happen anyway, even though we did not choose it is probably going to be far more than merely painful… it will probably be disasterous.

        • Matt,

          Because you have not provided nary a theoretical base to say “it’s not all that bad” – it is impossible to even see a chance that you are right.

          Your boss also made a mistake on #2.

          Absolutely no one will sail through unscathed.

          This is the sinking of the Titanic, we are running to the lifeboats, not moving onto the QE2. Living in a lifeboat sucks – except its better then dying.

          • Bottom Line says:

            BF – “Your boss also made a mistake on #2.

            Absolutely no one will sail through unscathed.”

            BL – I will. This comming economic crisis isn’t going to affect me nearly as much as most. I’m already on the bottom. I have nothing to lose in the event of an economic collapse. Not much changes for me. For me a depression basically means. S.N.A.F.U.( Situation Normal, All F*%#&d Up). I will sit around and watch the world be reduced to my level. The difference is that everyone else will still be in debt. I still won’t owe anyone anything.

            • The collapse of the economy will shrink the division of labor – this will lead to broad shortages of everything, unless you grow your own food and pump/refine your own oil.

              It is true that the worse you are now, the less it will effect you – shorter distance to fall.

            • BL,

              Don’t be so sure you have little or nothing to lose. Most ‘poor’ folks in the US and other first world nations have alot to lose. I live in the Republic of the Marshall islands. I don’t know your personal situation, but its a good bet you’re much better off than the majority of citizens in this country. You at least have reliable electricity, enough to eat and clean water. It may not seem like alot until you don’t have it. As I was reading your post I was thinking to myself that there are plenty of third worlders saying the same thing about YOU. Pretty soon you’ll be as poor as they are.

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    One day, there was a man who was CONVINCED that he knew all about freedom and all about rights. He was damn sure he had it all figured out.

    This man eventually got married and had kids. One day, the kids did something terribly wrong that was clearly against the rules of the house, and this made the father IRATE.

    Because he was so mad at the kids, he decided to beat their butts with a 2×4. He caused the children to have extremely bad bruises, and even broke one kid’s tailbone.

    When the mother found out about this, she immediately gathered up the kids and left the house and decided to move in with her mom temporarily until she could determine whether or not it would ever be safe for her and the kids to return home again.

    The husband called her at her mom’s house and said, “You have NO RIGHT TO TAKE MY KIDS FROM ME! I CAN RAISE MY KIDS AS I SEE FIT!”

    Where was the guy’s fundamental misunderstanding of freedom and rights?

    • Is this a pop quiz? I’ll do my Arnold Horshack impression here.. OOH, OOH! ME! OOH! I KNOW!

      • Young or not, I must respect the fact that you even knew who Arnold Horshack is. I loved that show.

        • It was a great show..

          But then I’m strange for my generation.. I grew up on all sorts of old shows. My favorites were Get Smart, Dragnet, and M*A*S*H. But I even used to watch the Dick Van Dyke Show, Lassie, Flipper, Taxi, F-Troop, Mr. Ed, and can even go as far back as a few episodes of the Patty Duke Show (not really my favorite, but if nothing else was on and I was bored enough, then ok). But I never watched Boy Meets World or Saved By The Bell. These days, I’m addicted to Stargate Universe, House, and Heroes.

          Adding, I have never in my life been as choked up as I was when Radar left M*A*S*M and left his teddy bear behind

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I was not a big Welcome Back Kotter fan myself, although it wasn’t a bad show. Just not one of my favorites.

          There are VERY few things that will actually get me to sit in front of the TV for any reason anymore…

          Things that will get me to sit there are (in no particular order)

          M*A*S*H reruns (even though I have seen every episode at least 6 times)

          House

          Bones

          The Mentalist (my wife got me hooked on this one)

          Deadliest Catch (not sure why, but I am fascinated by this show :))

          The Indianapolis Colts

          • M*A*S*H reruns seem to be becoming rarer and rarer.. shame

            Tell me you didn’t sob like a little girl when radar left his teddy bear.. you know you did.

            And when Colonel Blake’s plain crashed down in the Sea of Japan..

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Of course I sobbed during those 2 M*A*S*H episodes! Who says freedom loving people cannot also be sensitive! LOL 🙂

            M*A*S*H was an excellent show for demonstrating the propensity of government to perpetuate needless violence amongst a sea of corruption and inefficiency. AND it was damn funny to boot!

            It is too bad that so many of the “anti-government” types of the 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s are some of the exact same people who are HUGE fans of Statism now. Makes me sad.

            • The funny thing about Blake’s death was that nobody knew he was being killed off. He thought he’d probably make appearances in a few more episodes, and he was trying to renegotiate his contract, so maybe he’d reenlist and rejoin the cast. But they had filmed Radar giving the announcement secretly, and used previous footage for the reaction of the operating room. There were only a dozen or so people who knew about it by the time it when to air.

          • Hey PeterB, add “Lie to Me” to that list and you sound like us. And just for the record, I am pretty pithed off at the Yankees and the Phillies for messing up my nights of tivoing my fave shows!

            • Hey, I’m a Dodger fan.. how do you think I feel about it?

              • About the same way I feel as a Red Sox fan. But I am a baseball fan first, so I am still enjoying the series even without my Sawx.

  17. Common Man says:

    All;

    First and foremost I mean no disrespect to anyone commenting here today!

    Isn’t interesting how the likely back grounds and childhood circumstances influence our individual oppinions.

    I expect that those who err on the side of the child and suggest immediate and forceful intervention have experienced some like horror in their own lives. While those that would err on the side of the accused parents most likely have not.

    It is also interesting to see how age affects each point of view.

    I could be wrong, but I wonder.

    CM

    • Probably an over-generalization, but I certainly received a good amount of physical abuse as a child (brother rather than parents), but I still blame my mother for her failure to act. It is unlikely I will ever forgive her completely. I think the state probably should have stepped in at some point said “get your son under control, or we’ll have to remove your other son to keep him safe,” but that never happened. It could have saved me a lot of misery.

      Interesting observation though. Very. Well done CM.

      (Awards 10 points)

      • Common Man says:

        Mathius

        You have my heartfelt empathy for the abuse you endured…

        I would suggest, however that you take the ‘bucket test’ relative to your mother.

        Picture yourself at 89 laying in a hospital bed breathing your last few breaths and thinking about never forgiving your mother or brother for what took place. How would you feel? Now, imagine the same senerio but with the exception that you had forgiven both of them. How would you feel?

        Go forward accordingly.

        CM

        • My brother has some issues. He has an IQ around 160, but he doesn’t really have anything that could reasonably be called a conscience. He, like the Joker, is more of a force of nature than a person. You cannot be mad at him for being what he is, you just have to be very careful in how you approach dealing with him (my approach is to not deal with him at all, except for the running games of chess we’ve been playing over the iPhone).

          My mother, on the other hand, had a job to do. That job was to keep me safe. My father worked, she took care of the kids. She was supposed to keep me safe. He was supposed to provide money. He did his job. She did not do hers. She chose not to. She knew full well what was going on, but did not act. I could not protect myself and the person whose job it was chose not to. How can you forgive that? If she had tried and failed, or if she hadn’t known, that would be a different matter. By not stopping him, she might as well have been doing the abuse herself. No, I will never completely forgive her, but with several years (and 3,000 miles of distance) in between, I can maintain a civil relationship with her. That’s all she’s getting.

          And the government failed to do anything. It should have stepped in after the first few hospital visits. It failed me too.

          • Common Man says:

            Mathius

            “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong”

            Mahatma Gandhi

            CM

          • Mathius,

            The failure was not the governments nor your mothers.

            The failure was in the medical field. Doctors and nurses, in most states, are obligated to report cases of obvious child abuse to law enforcement.

            I do not know how old you are so I do not know when the abuse took place, however, even when I was young in the state I grew up in we had that sort of law in effect.

            The reason I do not fault your mother is that most women who know nothing of children abusing one another usually do nothing but tell their husbands how bad their children behaved that day. If you father had a hard day at work, like most dads he probably told her to handle it and she did not know how. If the injuries that were caused warranted a hospital visit, then the doctors and nurses did not do their job by reporting the case of obvious child abuse to law enforcement.

            Remember, law enforcement cannot act unless they know that a crime has been committed and the only way they can know that other than witnessing the crime themselves is by someone reporting it to them.

            • True GA, all true, and yet the failure is still both of theirs.

              The hospital failed to report it, then there should have been better controls in place to ensure that it was reported.

              My mother should have done something. My father should have too, though I do excuse him somewhat (and I don’t honestly think I should, but I do anyway) because it was not his job – that responsibility had been assigned to my mother. She could have sent him to military school. She could have sold him to the circus (note that I have four other siblings, all of whom have suffered at his hands to various degrees). She could have put him on high doses of lithium. She had options. Failing to act (not trying and failing, but not acting in the first place) makes it her fault.

              I agree though, law enforcement can only act when notified. Maybe the fault is mine for never calling the police myself. But then what young child does that?

              He has political aspirations (shocker that a borderline sociopath should seek political office, I know) and I have made it eminently clear to him that any further harm caused by him to my siblings and I will let all the cats out of the bag (I may anyway, I don’t think he should be trusted with power). And so I keep him in check. I just wish someone had done that for me.

    • CM,

      I haven’t responded mostly because I agree with your statements almost entirely.(and that work thing getting in the way) Nice job posting the early development stages.

      FYI, this is a really cool song to listen to with headphones. There is so much music in there that you can’t hear even with high end speakers.

      • Common Man says:

        LOF;

        Great song and made even better via the video, thanks,

        Hope the work lessens and you have a superior weekend.

        CM

    • Bottom Line says:

      Common Man – “I expect that those who err on the side of the child and suggest immediate and forceful intervention have experienced some like horror in their own lives. While those that would err on the side of the accused parents most likely have not. ”

      BL – My home life wasn’t all that great. The state DID step in for a spell. It didn’t do any good. It’s not their problem anyway. It’s the parent’s job.

  18. Completely off topic, but someone just sent me this.

    http://blog.mises.org/archives/010939.asp

    It sounds right to me, but I have very little scientific background. Does anyone have any insight into this letter or its author? Black Flag? Others?

    • No problem here. I have heard of things like this since I was in the fifth grade way back in the early 1950’s – it is something that is not taught to our children of today.

      Al Gore is nothing but a “convenient lie”!

    • Jay,

      My understanding of the science, he is spot on. For the record, I don’t claim any professional standing, just well read.

  19. Hi All

    IMO, maybe that father was abused when he was young, and felt it was okay to show his daughters porn, I don’t know. But, I think he had to have been a loon to even consider something like that. If you want to teach your children about sex, fine, but do to where they can understand what you’re talking about, and wait for an appropriate age, say like at least 12 or 13.

    I don’t think government has a right to tell you how to raise your kids, that should be strictly up to the parents, but this has crossed the line when a father shows his kids porn, whether it be boys or girls. Someone on here had said about teaching sex ed in schools with the option of opting out, and I agree with that, but lets not teach kids about sex before they are ready.

    I know this is kind of off topic here, but this reminds me of the time when my dad told us kids how he was raised. He told us that just about everyday, he would get the crap beat out of him because of something his younger brothers or sister did and that he should have known better and not let them do whatever it was they did. My dad once asked his mother why she did that to him and she told him because that was the way she was raised, and she thought that’s how you raised kids, by beating the crap out of them. So my dad said when he got married and had kids, e was determined to not ever do that to his kids, and you know what, he never laid a hands on us because of that reason.

    I guess what I’m saying is, that kids learn from experience and if they are ( not all ) abused as kids, I guess they in turn grow up to be abusers themselves. But like I said, this is my opinion.

    Hope all is having a good Friday.

    Judy

  20. What you are dealing with here is that the parents are divorced – I have a daughter who is divorced with two boys about these girls ages – and they share joint custody. The emphasis is on the words “joint custody”, which means that for certain decisions both parents need to get together and discuss what needs to be decided. Since we do not know the particulars here, we can assume – and that is a very dangerous thing to do – that the father did not discuss what it was he was going to show the kids and why he was going to show it to them. Therein lies the fault under that Texas law which needs to be clarified.

    The law is pretty clear in most states that law enforcement is obligated to protect the kids. If we in law enforcement are to make an error, then we make the error on the side of the children and that gives law enforcement the right (under the local laws) to intervene on the side of the children and remove the children from the home until it is determined that no crime was committed or that the children are in no danger by remaining in that home.

    As far as the laws that are on the books in some states that let an underage child (12, I think) get an abortion without the parents knowledge or consent, to me is purely ridiculous as I believe that parents should be involved with and responsible for their children from birth until the age of legal adulthood (which I believe should be no less than 21).

    The crime of the father, in this case at least, appears to be that he did not discuss what he was going to do for his children with the mother. That is what joint custody means, that for major decisions both parents should know what is going to happen and both parents should be in full agreement on the course of action that is to be taken.

    I have read the article on this case and will be following it as much as I can in the near future. It will be interesting to see just how it turns out. Personally, after reading the article, I think that the mother is getting fleeced by her lawyer and that this thing will be turned down by the local courts because she is going about it the wrong way. She needs to work on the state lawmakers to clarify that law and add a divorce/joint custody clause to that law.

    Just my not-so-humble opinion.

  21. Or, how about when sexual abuse is being done by one of the parents and the other one turns a blind eye to it, then what? How does a child protect themselves or get the protection they need? Or how about if that child is old enough to go to the authorities and report it, but yet nothing is done, then what is that child suppose to do? Sometimes I have read where children are being sexually abused, it’s reported, but yet nothing is done until it might be too late. Then what? I know too, that authorities will not believe a child if they tell them they are being abused, that only after a period of time, then will someone investigate it.

    Heard that from my sister who works for the Oakland police department when there have been cases of child sexual abuse in the home, and the child protection services didn’t do anything to remove that parent or child, until it was too late.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Judy,

      Part of the problem is that people rely upon the State to take care of issues like this, when we all know that the State is horribly inefficient at everything it does.

      If a parent, friend, or neighbor is unwilling to intervene on a child’s behalf and get them out of a situation like that, it is highly likely that nothing will happen until it is too late.

      This is why the parent, friend, or neighbor must have the courage and the willingness to intervene on behalf of the child whose rights are being violated.

      • Hi Peter

        I agree with what you said, and also to mention schools getting involved if they suspect any abuse what so ever is being done in any child’s home as well.

  22. The point to Polanski’s arrest, was because he had sex with an under age minor. Apparently Gore Vidal doesn’t get it.

    Author Gore Vidal says he refuses to feel any sympathy for Roman Polanski’s rape victim, whom he dubs a “hooker.”

    In an interview with The Atlantic, the controversial 83-year-old author of such books as “Myra Breckinridge” and “1876” says of the director’s sex scandal, “I really don’t give a [expletive]. Look am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s being taken advantage of?”

    The young woman to whom he is referring is Samantha Geimer, who was a 13-year-old aspiring model in 1977 when she was drugged and raped by Polanski.

    Vidal went on to say that the media pushed an inaccurate image of Geimer, painting her as an innocent victim as opposed to what he believes to be her true identity.

    “I was in the middle of all that,” he says of the scandal. “Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.”

    Worse, Vidal claims that it is the media’s vehement “anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing” that led to the persecution of Polanski, who is Jewish and was born in Poland.

    “The media can’t get anything straight … The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, ‘Polacko’ – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then … Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski.”

    Polanski, now 76, was arrested in Switzerland last month and is pending extradition. He has been living in France since he fled the U.S. in 1978, a year after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with an underage girl.

    The director of such classic films as “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby” has asked a U.S. appeals court in California to overturn a judges’ refusal to throw out his case. He claims misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it.

    Just three days ago, Geimer, now 46, asked the court to drop all charges against the director, claiming that the unwanted publicity has harmed her health, work and family.

  23. I hate this topic 😦 Why did he have custody of the girls to begin with? They normally give custody to the woman unless she is totally unfit.

    • Why should women get priority over men? Are the sexes somehow unequal in favor of females?

    • Hey, Willo…..not so much here in Texas….I see it 60/40 in favor of the mom but not always. We have limited alimony called separate maintenance but for only two years and that is only if the female does not have a marketable skill. We do have child support and enforcement thereof.

  24. 10 Qualities Needed In Our Public Leaders

    Ten qualities we need in our public leaders as we head back to the voting booth on Tuesday.

    As we embark upon a midterm election, our nation considers who will be granted the honor of leading us in the days ahead. The times in which we live demand that we choose wisely. The following are 10 qualities needed in our public leaders:

    1. Courage to make hard decisions.
    2. Character and a set of core values that merit trust.
    3. A clear vision for the future.
    4. The ability to call forth the best in others.
    5. Discipline.
    6. Recognition that he/she is accountable to the people.
    7. The ability to see things, not simply as they are but as they ought to be.
    8. The respect of his/her family.
    9. The flexibility to learn, improve and adjust.

    A track record of placing the good of the people over personal ambition.
    Our ability to vote came at a price. It is our duty to make certain that we are informed and that we take part in this vital civic responsibility. Nations rise and fall as to the caliber of their leaders. The quality of our leaders is dependent on us.

  25. HI BF

    Have to ask.

    How do you know a grizzly sometimes laughs in the forest?

    Did you ever see one laugh?

    • I think so, while he was watching me scramble up a large tree.

      • Is there a story in there somewhere? If so, would like to hear about it.

        • The summer days my brother and I worked Dad’s placer gold mine….

          Yes, one day I’ll fill the details.

          • Now why do you do that? Say something and make me wait like that. I’m still waiting for your other stories. Now, lets see, wasn’t that like oh, maybe 2 or 3 months ago?

            BTW, Where’s the rest of your article at, still waiting for that too.

            Do you get the feeling that I’m giving you a hard time BF? Hope you realize I am, but in a kidding manner.

  26. Matt Taibbi has an interesting article on Wall Street in the recent Rolling Stone magazine.

    Wall Street’s Naked Swindle

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30481512/wall_streets_naked_swindle/1

    Crooks, every damn one of them and we will be the ones to pay.

%d bloggers like this: