wDnnSCPS

On 24 May 2005 wrote:

and find the citizen guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt if the citizen pleads not guilty at the traffic
court
hearing and goes to trial.

Nonsense. Go find a traffic court and sit through a few cases. You are
such a bull****ter.

LOL! The only "bull****ter" here is you, Kane0. Here is a nice
flow-chart showing how traffic court works for you:

http://www.scselfservice.org/traffic/default.htm

I have to admire Doug for the patience he has with you. People on
this newsgroup are tired of all the noises made by an empty Kane!

Doan

On Thu, 19 May 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Don't state state your opinions as fact. You only loose credibility.

LaVonne

And you have lost your credibility since your lies have been exposed:

"Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found
corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes
than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true,
just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment
does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive
effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be
routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However,
it is important to note that their argument does point to the
need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not
just corporal punishment."

Doan

Greegor,

It was a point worthy of supporting evidence. Bobb provided nothing but
his opinion. One can reiterate an opinion a million times, but without
evidence reiteration doesn't eventually become truth.

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:

Bobb wrote

A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as
.001 percent. Great for marketing
but not much else.


This was a point worth reiteration.

Assumed by whom?

You wrote "That just happens to be the assumed risk smoking causes lung
cancer."

LaVonne

bobb

bobb wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Greegor wrote:

Bobb wrote

A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as
.001 percent. Great for marketing
but not much else.

This was a point worth reiteration.

Yes, given the obvious sources for his iterations.

And his exact claims, with no supporting evidence of any kind.

".001 percent?"

No doubt some risks are only .001 percent, but that would take them out
of the argument entirely...we weren't discussing risks that small, but
rather smoking, food, etc.

Now all he has to do is attach that .001 percent, to one of the
subjects HE brought up....that claim these are not that dangerous.


That just happens to be the assumed risk smoking causes lung cancer.

bobb


Possibly you could give him a hand.

CLAP.........CLAP............CLAP.........

0:-

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It was a point worthy of supporting evidence. Bobb provided nothing but
his opinion. One can reiterate an opinion a million times, but without
evidence reiteration doesn't eventually become truth.

LaVonne

LOL! I am still waiting for the evidence you said you have provided
"numerous times". In my opinion, you have LIED! And I have the
evidence to back it up. Here is my proof:

"Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found
corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes
than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true,
just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment
does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive
effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be
routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However,
it is important to note that their argument does point to the
need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not
just corporal punishment."

My opinion now has become TRUTH! ;-)

Doan

Bobb,

I said "drinking in excess."

And you said, "The idea is to scare people into not drinking even in
moderation. There is no evidence suggestion there is anything wrong
with a glass of wine or a beer."

Where is the logic? Read the post below. I have cut nothing. You are
equating my statement of drinking in excess to having a glass of wine or
beer. Having a glass of wine or beer is not drinking in excess. And you
are correct, unless one is pregnant there is "no evidence suggestion
there is anything wrong with a glass of wine or a beer." I never said
there was. I said DRINKING IN EXCESS.....

By the way, you never did respond to your claim that pregnant women who
drink may experience less breast cancer, as a justification for drinking.

Ever seen or worked with a child who has Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome? Why would any sane person recommend that a woman
drink while pregnant, regardless of the risk to her developing fetus, in
order to decrease the risk of breast cancer? How selfish and
self-centered can one be? I guess you have given me the answer.

LaVonne


bobb wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

bobb wrote:

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...


bobb wrote:

"Pop" wrote in message
...


...


Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't.
bobb

...

And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you

don't

believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could

collect

anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you

do, and

you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would

rather

believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can

conintue into

the oblivion you are destined for.

Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data?

Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana.

Alcohol in excess causes liver damage, increased risk of high blood

pressure, heart disease, and stroke.

The increased risk is slight for all but the confirmed drunk and even

then

it take years to develop.

You tried another "Douggism."

The response to you was: "Alcohol in excess."

To reframe and repeat is insinuation the poster you respond to was
incorrect, when in fact the two are in total agreement, your statement
and hers. "Alcohol in excess" = "confirmed drunk."

In fact, if you want to be exact YOU are still incorrect, in that it
does not take a "confirmed drunk" to drink "Alcohol in excess."

Check out the rash of deaths by binging in college students.


Yeh.. check it out. Alcoholic poisoning... not disease. Bing drinking, I
beleive they call it.


In the meantime, moderate drinking protects the
heart, etc.

I do not believe that is in the least conflicting with the poster you
respond to, since she said, "Alcohol in EXCESS."

It's just the usual unethical fallacious arguments, sloppy,
repetitious, and loud that amount to nothing...wind.


Drinking alcohol during pregnancy

increases the infants' risk of being born premature or with low

birth

weight. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can result in a child

born with

Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, both irreversible
conditions. We know this from research.

Wrong research. Look it up. Again, moderation is the key.

No, YOU tried to refute. YOU provide the research that supports the
concept that "moderation in the key" in protecting the developing
fetus, while still drinking.

Since there IS none, and LaVonne is absolutely correct, you sir, are a
liar...something you persist, by your refusal to correct a blatant
personal attack by LYING, in wearing as some kind of award.


Absolutely not. The idea is to scare people into not drinking even in
moderation. There is no evidence suggestion there is anything wrong with a
glass of wine or a beer. This is same crapola attributed to second hand
smoke.


Marijuana is especially problematic for teenagers. We know this

from

brain development research.

Hmm.... that could answer the amount of stupidity these days...but I

doubt

it.

You doubt that cannibus is a risk to young people, still
developing...teenagers? Really?

I suppose you think "huffing" is just an innocent passtime for
preteens?


Oh, now you want to compare apples to oranges, again, and change the
subject. That's a favorite ploy of yours when you're beaten. Huffing
solvents is not in the same catagory as marijuana.

Eggs, coffee and

butter were foods items to be avoided.

And still are. Eggs contain an incredible amount of cholesterol.

Coffee

should not be consumed in excess, and for people with high blood

pressure,

not at all, unless the coffee is decaf.

Where did you get the idea coffee raises blood pressure?

Could it be from some of these sources:

Results 1 - 10 of about 115,000 for coffee high blood pressure
hypertension

Gosh, only 115,000 hits on the search paramaters for coffee and
hypertension.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search


The additives in
decaf have their own complications.

And they would be?


Butter is extremely

high in fat. Individuals with high cholesterol, high fat diets are

at

risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease. We know

this

from research.

Again, not so. Fat actually helps to protect the heart contrary to

earlier

false studies.

You been getting those mailers making outrageous medical health claims,
haven't you? R R R ...now I know how old you are, at the minimum. 0:-

Certain KINDS of fats, not cholesterol. We have what is called a
"setpoint," were we need certain substances found in our body, to be
healthy, but the same substance in excess is deadly. Cholesterol is one
of those.

We are anemic without "Iron," but too much is deadly. I have to filter
my well water to precipitate out free iron for that very reason. But
remove all iron or too much from the human body, and you have a dead
body.

You are being conned, and being the sucker that Doug has proven again
and again you are, you love it. Anything that confounds what you think
is the mainstream, or truth you love. It gives you something to live
for.


Did I read that you said 'too much'? I'd say too much of anything could
have ill effects. I'd opt for moderation.. not worse case.



.00007 people get skin cancer...

soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun

screen

lest you end up a statistic.

I don't know where you got the .00007 percentage, but the

percentage is

actually a lot higher. If you spend a great deal of time outdoors,

sunscreen and/or covering skin is recommended. We know this from
research.

None of these studies are conclusive except we no people who live in

daily

sun do not contract skin cancer at a higher rate.. in fact,it may

even be

lower.

Yep, that australian so called study. It's bogus. People with certain
skin types do not contract skin cancer at a higher rate. Even those
with the less susceptable skin type can and do get skin cancer with
enough sun exposure.


Vitiam D seems to be a controlling factor and is presently be
explored.

Nutcase. D has NOTHING to do with skin cancer. It's simple a vitamin
our body doesn't produce, and needs, that we can get only from the
environment...and ONE way is by exposure to sunlight. But we don't have
to risk melanoma to get it. We can supplement for it. "presently be
explored." R R R R R ......


With fewer people spending time outside and drinking less milk..
which are the only sources for vitiam D.. and number of ailments are

being

explored.

"Milk" is NOT a vitamin D source, you fool. It is simply a convenient
carrier for supplemental D put in by the bottlers of the milk.


Don't try to obviate the obvious. Vitamin D is added to milk and is a second
source.


From a google with over one MILLION hits on the subject:
"Vitamin D
... Foods: In Canada, cow's milk and margarine are fortified with
vitamin D, ... But breast milk, which has only small amounts of vitamin
D (15 to 40 IU per ...
www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/VitaminD.htm - 12k -"

See that word "fortified." It means they had to put it IN, so that it
would most likely reach the most vulnerable target, children.

The nearest thing available today on research into any D and melanoma
goes something like this: "Some have suggested that vitamin D may
inhibit melanoma."

No research, just some hints. But that's a long way from the best
protection from skin cancer....simply reducing your sunlight
exposure....and stay away from those tanning booths, you idiot twit.


Who's talking about tanning booths? But there is a great market for
sun-screen products. Scare people into beleiving they will get skin cancer
if exposed to the sun.


Sunscreen also seems to caused breast cancer in woman.

Yep, same borderline research. Do you have any idea about
"replications" in research and what they mean, as to credibility? You
are being conned by commercial marketers that are quoting often single
studies that may or may NOT be replicated in the future. And in fact
that's an invitation to you to be a test subject by buying their
product and following the advice in it....usually poorly written
"health" hints.


I'll concede that both studies are poorly devised and written although I'd
suggest that the latter is more interested in protecting health as opposed
to bowing to some marketing scheme.


**** you are stupid.


Don't smoke either... but just today it was

announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast

cancer.

Smoking significantly and positively correlates with lung cancer,
emphysema, high blood pressure, and a myriad of other health

related

problems. We know this from research. Even if it is true that

smoking

mothers almost never suffer breast cancer, their children are far

more

likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. We

know

this from research.

Correlation is not causation.

For about a century you could use electrical energy, based on no more
science than repeted USE that correlated with outcomes. There was
little understanding, and at one time not even an awareness of
"electrons" and their function.

And the research is rather conclusive, bobber. And it's unfortunate
that LaVonne used the word, "correlates" because there are careful
scientific studies that clearly show causation at the molecular
level....the breakdown of living tissue into unwanted changes that kill
us, by the use of tobacco and other dangers to human substances.


That. too, is another lie.

The rate of lung cancer is on the rise, even
as smoking declines.

The rate of air pollution hasn't reduced significantly and in fact
during the current administration has risen as manufacturing as
successfully lobbied to get pollution supression reduced in
manufacturing.


The motality rate has declined but attribute that to
medical science... not smoke.


What "motality rate" [sic] are you referring to? The one from smoking?


The 'motality' rate of lung cancer. Your comprehension is on par with my
typing.


What's actually happened in science on this subject is that they have
discovered even more sensitivity in children to the effects of second
hand smoke than was previously believed. Children in homes where people
smoke are at a higher risk of disease and death than we once thought.
Look UP the current research Bobber.


Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks

in

adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in

children....

all fully supported by years of testing by the government.

We don't know this. We have correlational data coming in that has
resulted in certain medications from being pulled, and other

medications

to carry warnings.

In other words, bobber, we are learning all the time, based on
available facts...and you on rumor and incidental commercially driven
marketing quotes of insufficiently replicated and peer reviewed
"science."


We are learning that previous studies were wrong, and continue to be wrong.
Even the FDA has been lying right along.






Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited

for much

the same reason.

Neither of the above was based on research. This was based solely

on

opinion.

bobber, you NEVER bother to respond when you've been proven wrong, just
as you haven't on the lie you told about me, and admit to your error.
Does this mean you still believe you were correct and the poster is
wrong?


Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-)

bobb, it would be good if you understood and read research. Your

examples

of alcohol, marijuana, eggs, butter, coffee, and sunscreen actually

strengthen the position for research.

The least is far greater.

What?


All of which have been condemned at one time or
another. Asthama is increasing. Any suggestions?

Yes, look into the much higher use of deisel fuels in this country. And
the reduction in installation of and replacement and maintenance of
particulate suppression systems in manufacturing.


Allergies, are increasing, too? The additives in laundry soaps have
recently been questioned. I'd say it has something to do with

McDonald's

but they have enought problems.

Do you know what allergies are? Do you know the difference between
reactions to toxins and allergic reactions? Please. Please. READ
something besides the comics back pages and commercial solicitations
for 'health' advice.


Without research, you have nothing but an uninformed opinion.

There was a

time when popular opinion held that the earth was flat. Research
demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. Yet there was a time when

certain individuals rejected the research and continued to believe

the

earth was indeed, flat.


People beleived what they could see. Today, all they see are reports

and

data.

That requires that they learn what the phrase, 'scientific method'
means, and demand, when they get those reams of commercial mailers, and
sensationalist media announcements, that the producers come up with the
methodology, or at least more easily accessed study and research
sources with peer reviewed reports.


They are no more informed now.

Precisely...and it's because they are, like you, too stupid and
stubborn to learn and to seek out the more boring and harder to read
REAL scientific replicated peer reviewed scientific research reports.
Go to a university library near you. Ask for the STARS shelves. You
will find out where all this research "science" you are reading about
comes from. These are, by the way, reports that if they are correct and
you are smart and invest right could make you wealthy.

They are the first reports of research, priliminary research, from
around the world. Hot stuff, if tech reading doesn't numb your brain,
and you know how to USE a library and find dictionaries of scientific
terms for the particular field you are reading about in STARS at that
moment.

And there are people, bobber, that go to libraries and search...that
make a living out of finding such things, and writing them up for the
companies that sell you their product based on the search and writings
of these freelancers.


A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as .001 percent. Great for

marketing

but not much else.

Hmmmm...let me see now...YOUR sources (and I KNOW what they are
now....R R R R) and LaVonne's, who can access a fine university library
with all the current research reports of qualified scientists, with
reviews that reveal of there is sufficient replication to validate the
conclusions as true or false...LaVonne is wrong, and YOU are right.

I see now. R R R R R R

You are the fool accessing, or being fed, rather, unreviewed initial
findings...of which there is a report somewhere on nearly everything
imaginable...without ANY further research, while LaVonne most likely
confines herself to reports out of the high pressure grinder of
academic research, with all one's collegues hanging over your reports
ripping them apart piece by piece.

And you say, " A lot of data and research is not confirmed " as a
"REBUTTAL?"

By the way, did you ever figure out the risks, actual risks based on
outcomes, that the AIDS Tx/Rx for foster children (only ten percent of
the test population)?


In case you missed it....

Seattle PI reports that over the last two decades a number of foster
children, mostly poor or minorities, were given AIDS medicines shown to
cause serious side effects in adults. These drugs were apparently
administered without research into safe dosage levels for children.
Researchers defend the experiment by saying it exposed the children to their
best hope for recovery and statistics showed a marked improvement in
AIDS-related deaths among foster children. Seattle PI responded by saying
the results were unclear and the argument was not enough to justify
experimentation on children. Be sure to read the related article, Mandatory
AIDS testing proposal is public health lunacy.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., said prisoners are guaranteed more protections
under the guidelines concerning clinical trials than foster children.
Prisoners must have an advocate expressly appointed to represent their
interests on local institutional review boards. Foster children don't have
such an advocate appointed to look out for them, he said.


Foster children not guinea pigs

A basic protection required under federal law to prevent children in foster
care from being taken advantage of by medical researchers failed.

As a result, hundreds of children during the 1990s were exposed to medical
treatments that may have been inappropriate, caused unnecessary pain and
suffering, and, in at least one situation, resulted in higher mortality
rates.



bobb



Your willingness to babble like an "expert" is a yuk.


bobb

This is called an uninformed opinion.

LaVonne

bobb

And you got a big big case of "uninformed opinion," bobber.

Thank goodness you have no power.

0:-

bobb wrote:


1.. USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer
of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and
therefore virtually useless).

I don't know if this is true or not. I think every individual needs to
weigh the true risk of smoking and making and independent decision.
Unless the smoker is a pregnant woman. A pregnant woman should never
deliberately expose her fetus to damage.

2.. No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (5 cigars/wk, not
inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.

Studies have shown an positive correlation between the amount one smokes
and lung cancer deaths. Go get some information, and post it. You must
read if you want to be credible.

3.. Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only
#9.**

Even if this is true, nine isn't so far from five. Why go for nine,
unless it's a conscious and informed decision?

4.. All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and
lung cancer only 2%.**

You have a lot of claims with very little evidence.

5.. Occasional cigarette use (1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk
factor in lung cancer.

How many smokers do you know that smoke less than one pack per week?
Smoking is a powerful addiction.

6.. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.3

So?

7.. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in
lung cancer.

There is no way to prove a negative. And there are many good
correlational studies that link certain levels of second hand smoke to
an increase in lung cancer. Go check them out.

8.. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke
statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.

One study proves nothing. Ever hear of replication?

9.. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood
increases their risk of getting lung cancer.

But there are many studies that show strong correlations between second
hand smoke exposure during childhood, especially very early childhood,
and asthma and other respiratory disorders.

10.. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after
exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23

Humans are not mice.

11.. If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature
death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought
that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)

How can you make such a ridiculous claim? You have absolutely no
evidence other than your opinion!

And by the way, the earth is still flat and the only reason we have
morning and evening is because the sun moves!

LaVonne

bobb

Kane's Komments

Kane:

One of the favorite arguments of child abuse apologists is that there
are only a few instances of "severe abuse" and the rest is what, "mild"
abuse? What does less severe really mean?

With the number of severe abuses that make it to criminal court how
many cases just a bit less severe that doesn't make to criminal court
are there? Well, USDHHS numbers suggests quite a few. 0:-

And these "severe abuse" cases I post are a reminder to you scum that
there is no lack of these either.

SUSPECT in child abuse case arrested
Globe and Mail - Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Mr. Wilson, 31, is charged with aggravated assault in connection with
what
police described as one of the most horrific cases of child abuse they
had ever seen ...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050524.wabuse0524/BNStory/National/

Kane:

Ooooo...creative....

PEDIATRICIAN charged with child abuse against infant son
WSLS.com - Roanoke,VA,USA
by Denise Eck / WSLS NewsChannel 10. A pediatrician and father is
charged
with attempted murder for allegedly committing an unusual form of child
abuse. ...
http://www.wsls.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSLS%2FMGArticle%2FSLS_BasicArt icle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782879859&path=!news!loca lnews


Kane:
Obviously a case of malicious neighbors, and mistaken identity, or one.
or the other, or something else, or society getting sick and tired of
abuse of children.

CHILD Abuse Investigated
WOWT - Omaha,NE,USA
An Omaha woman is in custody, accused of Felony Child Abuse, after
allegedly
trying to sell her one-year-old child into prostitution. ...
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/1568831.html


Kane:
According to bobber, this guy is just whining and trying to set up
someone to sue. He wasn't really hurt if there was no force and
violence. Isn't that correct, bobber?

CHILD abuse is never the kid's fault
Contra Costa Times - CA,USA
DEAR ABBY: I'ma 53-year-old man who, thanks to child abuse from his
stepfather,
is confused and hurt. I don't know whether I am gay or straight. ...
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/11715734.htm

We do not give a citizen a summons for criminal court (a
traffic ticket) unless they reach the point of actually running the
red
light in their car.

No, Doug. We give a ticket based on what the officer THINKS someone
did. Someone may or may NOT have run the red light. We investigate,
Doug, just like in CPS interventions.

Hi, Kane,

Yes, Kane. The cop gives the citizen a summons for court (a "ticket") that
states the officer observed the citizen running the stop sign. The state
(city) must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the citizen ran the stop
sign when the cop and the citizen appear in court.

\ Traffic offenses are criminal offenses,

Some are, and some aren't. A few weeks back this same argument came
up...that traffic offenses are all criminal offenses. The country has
many civil traffic courts, Doug. Look it up.

ALL traffic offenses are criminal offenses.

The distinction between civil litigation and criminal ligitation is quite
simple, really. Issues tried in civil courts are between two citizens or
enities relating to their respective private rights and to remedies sought
by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings, which is litigation
between the state and its citizens for violation of law.

All traffic offenses are violations of criminal statutes and are tried in a
division of criminal courts, often called traffic courts.

A lawsuit arising out of one citizen seeking medical expenses from another
after an automobile accident would be an example of litigation heard in a
civil court. As the result of that same accident, the driver of one of the
vehicles could also be ticketed, which is a summons to criminal court for
violation of criminal traffic laws.

although a
parking ticket is certainly a summons for a relatively minor criminal

offense.

YOu are as usual creating a fantasy world to justify your serious
thinking errors. Instead of reality, you make it up as you go along, as
you are doing now.

No thinking errors on this end. No fantasy world. Just the real world.
You have demonstrated several thinking errors. Does your magical thinking
just flow as you go along?

and find the citizen guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt if the citizen pleads not guilty at the traffic
court
hearing and goes to trial.

Nonsense. Go find a traffic court and sit through a few cases. You are
such a bull****ter.

No nonsense. In the United States of America, a citizen is presumed
innocent of a crime (even small ones, like traffic offenses) until proven
guilty in a court of law.

If the citizen pleads not guilty at the hearing in traffic court the case
has to be tried on its merits. Traffic offenses are criminal offenses, so
if the case is tried on its merits the city (civil) must prove guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.

And the same system is in place for family court, Doug. I know it. You
know it. And anyone that has been in one knows it.

In our wisdom, as a society, we have moved from the more primative
society thinking and look to prevent. This resulted in us NOT
cutting
off someone's hand or foot because they ran a stop light. We send
them,
much of the time, to a civil traffic court, and they are most often
given small fines and sent to school, or lectured a bit by the
judge.

Yes, only after they run the stop light do cops summon them to
criminal
court, where they have the due process right to have their guilt
determined
beyond a reasonable doubt or plead guilty to running the stop light.

Choices are available to those CPS investigates, Doug.

No, they are not. CPS workers often serve as investigators, prosecutors,
judges and executioners. In fact, only 17.8% of children substantiated as
victims by CPS ever have a court involved in their cases.
http://tinyurl.com/2yka8

Some choices are the same, some are different, but stop pretending that
family court, CPS, and child protection must be the same as traffic
court.

I never said that traffic court, which is a criminal court, was anything
near the same as family court. In fact, I argued the opposite.

That is stupid beyond reason. Traffic court is different than
food handing laws enforceement is different than professional sports
cheating enforcement is different than water safety enforcement is
different than child protection enforcement is different than economic
fraud....etc. etc. etc.

Inferring, as only you have done, that traffic court is the same as family
court is, indeed, stupid beyond reason. One is criminal court. The other,
civil.

Traffic court, which litigates criminal traffic violations, is most
certainly much different than any form of enforcement, whether it be food
handing enforcement or child protection enforcement. Traffic court is a
criminal court and would be to traffic violations of criminal law as
superior court would be to homicide detectives enforcing murder statutes by
arresting a suspect later tried in superior court.

The analogies you try, Doug, and stupid. As you are.

? Could you please clarify the above?

Either
way, we do not cut off their foot or hand, anymore than we would cut
off
someone's hand if they were convicted of misdeamnor child abuse.
Running a
stop light is a crime.

One kind of crime. Not all crime is the same, equal, or requires the
same enforcement.

Precisely my point. There are different levels of criminal child abuse.
Most people charged with this crime are charged with the minor, misdeamnor
violations. And no crime in this country results in the state cutting off a
citizen's hand or foot.

That is why we have different laws, and different
enforcement proceedures for different kinds, and why we bother to
discriminate.

Exactly my point. So child abuse, which is a crime, can be prosecuted as
such on all sorts of levels dependending on the severity of the alledged
maltreatment. We discriminate. I offered this very point in response to
your errant claim that child abuse had to rise to the level of felonious
assault for police to be involved. To the contrary, as your posts to the We
Dont Need No Stinking CPS message thread continually describe, police are
investigating minor levels of child abuse and the state is prosecuting them.

You have the thinking processes of a fascist, Doug.

Nothing in my thinking processes, which you cannot observe, or my writing,
which you read daily, has anything to do with fascism. The childish name
calling does not serve your argument.

Child abuse is a crime.

Yep, and can be prevented from becoming a criminal court level crime
with injury and death to children.

Very low levels of child neglect or other maltreatment are violations of
criminal law to be handled in criminal court. Criminal court handles
violations of criminal law. A citizen need not injure or kill a child to be
in violation of child endangerment or child abuse laws. You restricting
criminal level child abuse to only higher, major injury abuse is a thinking
error. The idea is for police and criminal courts to become involved BEFORE
a child is injured seriously.

However, you have just exercised yourself, and the credulity of the
reader, on an issue that doesn't fit. Traffic courts are in many places
civil courts, rather like family courts.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not just wrongfully charge ME with saying traffic
courts are like family courts? They most certainly are NOT. Traffic courts
are criminal courts.


Certain levels of traffic
violations, just like certain levels of child abuse, will go to civil
court or criminal court.

Nope. All levels of traffic violations are violations of criminal statutes
and go to traffic court, which is a criminal court. Some traffic violations
are more minor than others, and are treated differently by the judge after
the citizen is convicted or pleads guilty. Traffic courts are not the same
as family courts.

The same goes for child abuse. Child abuse is a crime. There are different
levels of criminal child abuse, from minor to major abuse involving
injuries. All are adjuciated in criminal court.

rebutted most of what you claim time and again, Doug. The idea that CPS
investigators aren't trained is a crock. Even in the Florida example
that turned so sour on you as time passed, the COPS HAD TO HIRE CPS
INVESTIGATORS to work for them precisely because they were not trained
in the speciality.

Not at all. Broward County Sheriffs investigate child abuse in that county.
The unit is under the direction of law enforcement. Investigation is done
by law enforcement.

Ask any detective if they can investigate any type of crime without
special training. There are a few skills that cross over, but a great
deal of specialty that does not. Child abuse investigators, police OR
CPS, must have special training. Ask them, stupid.

Federal funding has been flowing for years to train police officers on how
to investigate child abuse and neglect. There are no experts in this
speciality on almost all police forces across the country. In a small town
near here, the PD has 3 specialists in child abuse and neglect
investigation.

A citizen is innocent unless
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in such trials.

Yes, that is true in those cases that rise to the level of criminal
charges.

A case does not have to rise to the point of "felonious assault" for it to
be a violation of criminal law and appropriate for criminal charges. Most
criminal charges for child maltreatment are brought for minor incidents.

After proven
guilty, then the judge can assign parenting classes or force innocent

children into therapy. Not before.

No, they can offer choices in lieu of harsher penalties, Doug, just
like family court judges do. Yer a liar.

After CONVICTION, the judge can give those proven beyond a reasonable doubt
to be guilty a choice of penalties, yes. In criminal court, due process
demands that the citizen be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or plead
guilty before he is penalized.

You don't remember what the safety plan is for where children ARE left
in the home, and the assessment that is part of such plans so that the
family need NOT be disrupted by the child's removal.

Only eight percent of the children subjected to CPS interventions are
removed from their homes before, during or after CPS investigations. The
vast majority of these children had NO safety plans, were provided NO
services, and were not in any way left in the home under conditions. In
2002, 3,171,871 children were subjected to CPS investigations and
assessments. 265,000 of those children were removed from their homes --
often as long as 9 months AFTER the investigation was completed.

Around 8% of the children subjected to a child abuse or neglect
investigation are removed from their homes.

Where did you get the idea that "they were most all removed?"

I didn't say they were. I was referring to those that are, for the
reasons stated. That they would be at risk by the assessment and
judgement of the investigating worker. Some are left, and some are not.

92% of the children investigated by CPS in 2002 were not at risk?

What states have paid consistent attention to changing CPS policy,
training
workers, and reducing caseloads so that CPS caseworkers do "a much
better
job."? What states?

Ones YOU YOURSELF have named in the past as wonderful examples of
improvement.

I did not think you would answer. I did not make any references, at any
time, to any state paying consistent attention to changing CPS policy,
training workers, reducing caseloads or anything else so that CPS workers
could do a better job. Never. You are the one who made that comment.

I believe you also touted Florida as an example. And what was it that
actually worked, Doug?

Florida is in horrible shape. Its child protective system became most
abusive some years back after a huge funding hike. Florida has since
reduced its funding to CPS and counties are in the process of reassigning
the role of investigating child abuse from social service workers to law
enforcement.

The foster care population in Florida has dropped dramatically. Less
children are being taken into custody and more are being released to their
families.

I posted the following once before, and like so much of my rebuttals
you cannot handle, you ignore them, or spend your valuable time
concocting elaborate ruses to lead the readers, (and I suspect,
yourself) away from the facts that confound your bull**** dreams. Read
this over, and get back to us.

http://www.actionchildprotection.org...ourri_1103.htm

I posted the following article, written by a social worker who now holds one
of the top administrative positions at USDHHS. Read this over and get back
to us.

http://tinyurl.com/94jz

Child Protection at the Crossroads:
Child Abuse, Child Protection, and Recommendations for Reform

By Susan Orr, Ph.D.

Executive Summary

Today, with few variations, state laws surrounding child abuse and neglect
look remarkably similar. All share similar definitions regarding abuse and
neglect; all require professionals to report suspicions under threat of
prosecution; all provide confidentiality to anyone involved in an
investigation-from the person making the allegation to the children and
family members involved. These similarities are not accidental, but were
accomplished with relative ease a quarter-century ago. They are the intended
consequences of a federal law first passed in 1974 known as the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA).

a.. Although much public attention has focused on the cost of public
assistance (the former AFDC program), child welfare is a more expensive
governmental activity and the more complicated. In 1995, the federal
government spent about $11,698 per child in foster care, whereas it spent
only $1,012 for each person receiving welfare benefits. When factoring in
state costs, the average cost increases even further to $21,092 per child in
foster care versus $2,499 for each person receiving a welfare check.
b.. The United States has had federally mandated child-protection laws for
over a quarter of a century. Since these mandates have been in effect, child
maltreatment rates have increased tremendously and child-protection agencies'
ability to handle the increase has declined:
c.. When CAPTA was enacted in 1973, child-protection agencies handled
about 60,000 reports of abuse and neglect; today they handle 3 million.
d.. Substantiation rates have plummeted from a high of 61 percent in 1976
to a current low of 31 percent.
e.. Early estimates on confirmed abuse and neglect, while far from exact,
ranged from 6,500 in 1967 to 360,000 in 1974.
f.. In 1997, child-protection agencies confirmed that 963,870 children
were abused or neglected by their parents.
g.. Around the same time, more than 130,500 children entered foster care
bringing the total number of children being taken care of by the state to
520,000.
h.. Less than 20 percent of all substantiated cases of child maltreatment
go to criminal or civil court.
i.. Most children can remain home safely, even after a substantiated
incident. Fewer than 20 percent of the three million children investigated
are in sufficient danger that they have to be removed from their family.
Although spoken of in terms of social services, the child-protection
function of child welfare is essentially a police action. The state conducts
an investigation of a family based on an allegation and can use police power
to enter a home and take a child or children into protective custody. The
key difference is that for child-protection agencies (CPS), unlike the
police, the focus is not on the perpetrator, i.e., the parent, but on the
victim, i.e., the child. Hence it is the child who is removed, not the
parent, when the situation is dangerous. This concentration on the child
instead of on the one who causes harm is part of the problem. It is the
result of treating child maltreatment, with rare exceptions, outside of the
bounds of criminal prosecution, for behavior that if perpetrated against
anyone other than a relative would result in assault charges.

The pervading problem in child welfare is one of perverse incentives that
undermine personal responsibility. The child-protection system is built upon
the notion that child maltreatment is remediable with the right therapeutic
treatment. Child abuse is not regarded primarily as a violation of justice,
but as either a symptom of illness or the result of economic deprivation.
Parents are not at fault. Because abuse is not seen as a moral problem, it
must be susceptible to professional help. It is therefore not surprising to
find reluctance to ever pronounce any given parent irredeemable.

Child-protective services are the most-intrusive arm of social services,
because child-protection workers have the power to determine whether or not
a child should be removed from his family, sometimes permanently. Services
always come with the understood threat of taking children away, whether that
threat is real or only perceived.

Most families will never come into contact with the child-welfare system,
because most families do not abuse or neglect their children. Most who do
come in contact with this system live in poverty and are headed by a single
mother. Families in crisis will always defy easy solutions. No policy
proscription can prevent some parents from assaulting their children. Yet,
some solutions can be teased out that would lower the numbers of children
harmed by the very people who are meant to protect them-and do so without
excessive public interference into the private lives of families.

The primary recommendations for reform are as follows:

1.. Narrow the scope of child abuse and neglect definitions. Scholars and
child-welfare experts from across the political spectrum agree that
narrowing the scope of child abuse and neglect would allow CPS to focus on
the most drastic cases. Much that is now defined as child abuse and neglect
does not merit governmental interference.
2.. Place the investigatory powers with the police. Police are trained in
matters of investigation. It is the nature of child protection to be
accusatory. Cloaking the investigation under social services and anonymity
does nothing to hide that essential fact. The behavior that we are
discussing is criminal in nature; therefore police should gather the
evidence. Once the scope of what constitutes child abuse is appropriately
narrow, local police would be the best government agency to conduct
investigations. If the investigation suggests a crime was committed, the
case would then proceed to court for adjudication.
3.. Re-criminalize child abuse and neglect Having already narrowed the
scope of child abuse and neglect to serious cases, what remain are cases of
assault and serious neglect. That means that the standard would be the same
if someone harmed a stranger's child or her own. Now child abusers are only
guaranteed punishment if they harm someone not related to themselves. Most
importantly, criminal cases require public records and due process.
4.. Repeal mandatory reporting laws that are in effect in all the states.
Mandatory reporting laws, designed to encourage those who work with children
to report incidents of maltreatment, have had two negative effects. First,
they encourage unnecessary reporting because professionals must report all
of their suspicions under threat of prosecution. While such prosecutions are
rare, one shouldn't have to report suspicions. Reporting should be
restricted to more concrete evidence of a crime. Second, mandatory reporting
discourages fellow citizens from taking positive neighborhood action with
families in trouble. Citizens tend to consider that their responsibilities
have been met when they call an anonymous hotline, because that is what the
law tells them to do. Knocking on the door and offering help to a family,
which is troubled, but not engaged in criminal behavior, may be the more
appropriate alternative.
5.. Make child and family services voluntary. Having separated criminal
behavior from deficient parenting, we could enable caseworkers to do what
they were trained to do and what they do best, i.e., social work. Without
the threat of child removal hanging over their heads, parents might more
willingly accept services-such as help with parenting skills. Knowing that
an agency only provides services, parents might be more receptive to
receiving such help. Moreover, these services should be privatized, as
private agencies with performance-based contracts tend to work more
effectively than state bureaucracies.


You lie about "throwing money" at the problem. It's NEVER been done.
Conditions were already so bad that large amounts of money not in fact,
when applied, ENOUGH, or likely to solve the problem in less than
YEARS.

Throwing more money at the problem just buys more of the problem.

One can't produce experienced trained educated workers out of thin air
instantly just because there is money. All these things take time to
accomplish.

Maryland hires only MSW level social workers as CPS workers. It is the only
state to do so. Its outcomes and practices are no better than other states,
who employ undergraduate art history majors. The problems with CPS are
systemic and are rooted in policy that workers have no control over
changing.

Which makes you, Doug, stupid or a liar. Take your pick.

Neither one. Actually, like Orr, I am just someone who disagrees with you.
To disagree with you does not make one automatically either stupid or a
liar.

Personally I tend toward thinking you are a malicious propagandist of
some skill that cares not for children or families, but only for
destruction to satisfy your sick impotent rage over what happened to
YOU.

I care a great deal for children and their families. There is nothing
"malicious" in my posting. I seek to reform the system so it stops the
destruction malpractice can reek upon children and their families. To that
end, I spend a lot of time in legislatures, writing op ed pieces and
directing a legislative reform organization. And, of course, I disagree
with you.

If you would stick to the issues rather than try to impugn motives of those
you disagree with, you may gain some crediablity, Kane.


Enjoy your day.

I have so far, thank you! Beautiful day. You have a great evening!

Doug

Kane writes:

I believe you also touted Florida as an example. And what was it that
actually worked, Doug?

Hi, Kane,

LOL!

For a detailed breakdown on how Florida's child protective system CAN be
reformed, see Richard Wexler's work at:
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/emerging.doc

In "Shadow on the Sunshine State" and "A Lengthing Shadow," it was Wexler
and his national organization of child welfare experts that exposed the
agency, got its director fired, and reforms begun.

Doug