| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


Julie Pascal wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery
and
zealots about it."

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for anyone
over the age of 18.

Yeah.

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

--Julie

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:01:05 -0500, "Julie Pascal"
wrote:


"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


Julie Pascal wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not
to own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are
anti-slavery
and
zealots about it."

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their
side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for
anyone
over the age of 18.

Yeah.

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

--Julie


I think you are just one step away from the answer:

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

Yes, why punish at all? Why not simply teach? What is it about little
children that requires punishment?

Kane

On 23 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:01:05 -0500, "Julie Pascal"
wrote:


"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


Julie Pascal wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not
to own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are
anti-slavery
and
zealots about it."

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their
side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for
anyone
over the age of 18.

Yeah.

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

--Julie


I think you are just one step away from the answer:

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

Yes, why punish at all? Why not simply teach? What is it about little
children that requires punishment?

Kane

Why have juvenile halls? Let's abolish them now! ;-)

Doan

On 23 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:01:05 -0500, "Julie Pascal"
wrote:


"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


Julie Pascal wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not
to own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are
anti-slavery
and
zealots about it."

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their
side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for
anyone
over the age of 18.

Yeah.

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

--Julie


I think you are just one step away from the answer:

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

Yes, why punish at all? Why not simply teach? What is it about little
children that requires punishment?

Kane


"Effective discipline requires three essential components: 1) a positive,
supportive, loving relationship between the parent(s) and child, 2) use of
positive reinforcement strategies to increase desired behaviors, and 3) rem=
oving
reinforcement or applying punishment to reduce or eliminate undesired
behaviors. All components must be functioning well for discipline to be
successful."

From=20AAP Statement
Doan
A *plagiarist*, according to Dr. LaVonne

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:33:03 GMT, "Doug"
wrote:

Kane writes:

Kane has shared with us that he
perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.

"Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?

Hi, Kane!

Your description of children bullying you is your perception, yes.

I didn't "perceive" it. I experienced it. YOu do go off on your word
games, don't you, Dung?

Who
else's would it be?

Did I suggest it was someone else's?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

My answer to your question, "Who else's would it be?" is, I didn't
percieve being hit.

Kane set upon a
mission to physically assault the children.

I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word
twister?

My understanding of the mission you described was that you hit the
kids and
broke enough noses that you could not later count them all up.

That is correct. I didn't seek them out as you might notice. I
defended myself. And no, it wasn't a mission. Point out were I made a
mission of it.

I understood
you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in
fear. You
spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your
mild
manner made you an easy target.

"A lot of time?" Where did I mention how much time it took? Usual an
encounter with a bully, if you don't back down, takes just a couple of
seconds.

Once other children learned that you could
hit after age 11, they left you alone.

Funny about that.

You got a problem with it?

Here is what you said exactly:

"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. Spent a good
deal
of time dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild
mannered one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I
broke.

A good deal of time can be a lot or not, according the point one is
trying to make.

"When I hit fifteen nature caught up and I grew and grew. The sight
of
me was enough to discourage bullies, added to the knowledge that
other
bullies that had mixed with me knew what I could do, and the rest of
my school years were easy.

"But despite the fact I could and did whip ass after age 11 or so,
having to live in fear was very distracting and to me damaging. YOU,
silly ****, don't know what you are talking about."

No, I didn't live in fear later. Only during the years I was a victim
of bullies. I have a feeling you knew that and searched hard for
something you pretend I meant that I didn't.

Now why would you do that, Dung?

You are not really going to "try and claim that hitting isn't
violence, are
you?"

Of course not. So you can readily see that hitting children is
violence. You aren't going to try and claim that spanking does not
require the action of hitting, are you?

He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's
noses he
broke.

Try quoting in context.

I have included the actual quotes in this post.

With a few added little pieces of Dung to try to make it look like I
was the aggressor.

Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.

Bullies have now become "children." How interesting.

They were children.

As was I.

A 15 year old 180
pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and
attacked
ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."

If the 15 year old is not a child, what is he/she? You did not
mention the
age or weight of any of those you perceived as "bullies" so I
wouldn't know
how old the countless other kids with broken noses were.

All in their teens. Why would you attempt to portray me as a villian?

It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading
of
the readers. You never seem to tire of it.

Is that "the same kind of nonsense thinking that goes with "spanking
isn't
hitting?"

Why yes, it does seem to fall in the same thinking error category.
Demonstrate how to spank without any hitting action involved.

But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
violent, abusive childhood.

Really? Compared to who?


As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.

Funny how it tapers off quickly. I note a lot of families that have
children that are bullied take them off to a martial arts training.
Usually one of the striking disciplines such as Tae Kwan Do.

So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.


I had a wonderful childhood. Loving, nurturing parents and lots of
adventures with friends. Some might consider it boring -- grew up in
an
upper middle class neighborhood on the Pacific Coast.

That's nice. I happen to attend a school and live in a neighborhood
where a lot of corporal punishment went on. Later when we moved I
found myself in a somewhat more genteel situation. Quite a surprize
and much more suited to my mild personality. I flourishe, but then I
probably would where I was before...as I tend to mix well with the
natives and their customs wherever I've gone on this planet.

Family-system theorists may hold that he
bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a
victim.

Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using words
on
a medium where we can't even see each other?


Since I don't know you at all, attempting to label you with a DSM-IV
label
would be foolish.

Well, you just called me a bully, no?

I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

That's odd. I consider many that you either don't engage and correct
as bullies of members of this group. Why is it you pick and choose
just as you do?


Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?


Not in the slightest. I do not perceive myself among those members
who have
received bullying replies. I did not feel bullied as a child,
either.

Then you probably didn't have the same experience I did.

You appear unable to converse with me without insults and
ridicule.
Aren't
you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to
believe
that
preventing these things is really very important to you. I
have told
you
about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than
giving me
an
alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad
parent.
You
have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to
preventing
spanking.
Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a
high
priority for you at all.

The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe
pseudo-events
involving children -- is troublesome.

Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
fascinating.


Thank you.

You are welcome.


You have a habit of generalizing a population by providing a set of
exacting
descriptions of a particular incident that plausably could have
occurred
once.

You have a habit of generalizing the actions of child protective
services in much the same way.

For example, in writing about all children who are substantiated:
"CPS offices are filled with children with spiral fractures to their
legs
and cigarette burns on their hands." Since the specific description
is
applied to the general population, the description is a pseudo-event.

Why is it you address me on this and not others here who do the same
but happen to agree with you?

First, CPS offices are not filled with children injured in this way;
in
fact, they are not filled with children in any condition.

I beg your pardon. I am responding to YOUR claim that there are
thousands of children taken into state custody through CPS. Have you
decided to start telling the truth now?

Second, the
majority of children substantiated by CPS are neither abused or
neglected in
any way, but substantiated as being "at risk" of future maltreatment.

You lie.

Of
those children who are substantiated for actual abuse -- which
account for
around 10% of substantiated cases -- the injuries are generally much
less
severe than the horrid picture you paint. Such major injuries
represent
less than 1% of substantiated cases.

You seem quite happy to gloss over the numbers and the children and
the events. Very few children that enter CPS out of home care are free
of injury.

And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
morals police?


No.

Good. One would think you are by your posting selectively about me and
leaving others, liars mostly, not only alone but defending them.

Family-systems folks would lay the
blame on his parents or foster caregiver.

Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most
kids
of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.


I would not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, many caseworkers
applying family systems theory would.

Why then should I or the poster you mentioned it to be concerned?

This is one of the basic flaws in CPS
practice today -- assuming that a child's violent behavior is the
fruit of
parental wrongdoing.

What would be the cause then, according to Dung?

You have claimed, for instance, that children who are spanked are
more
likely to be violent.

Yes. I have witnessed it for years. The treatment centers seem to be
overcrowded with them. They suffer from many related disorders.

Others would say he is a
self-made man.

We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual to
his
or her detrement.


I absolutely and totally agree with you. I submit that government
agencies
inclination to blame parents as causal for a child's misbehavior or
"acting
out" is the procedure of a government invested in control of
families.

You may "submit" anything you like. What is your experience that
supports this submission?

By the way, social services agencies of all kinds, including police,
are paid by the public to do exactly what you want to pretend they
aren't supposed to do. They are all, to one degree or another, agents
of societal control.

But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
reflective of them.

You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?


Good point. No, I don't speak for any other member of these
newsgroups.

Thank you for clearing that up. Notice you said "few readers, if any"
an extremely inclusive statement.

Now that you have pointed it out, I can see how my statement clearly
implies
that I know what other members are thinking. I do not. I apologize
for the
transgression.

Glad to be of service. You "transgress" a great deal where you do not
apologize.

He speaks volumes about himself.

You speak for me now?


No, I think you speak volumes about yourself.

I think you pretend you don't speak for me, when you go out of your
way to try and change the meaning of my statements.

I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing who
and
what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover
some
interesting things about you.

One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that
you
are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the least
vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.


I disagree. If you have an example of this practice you accuse me
of, I
would be happy to consider it. I do not believe that I have ever
preempted
folks I perceive to be vulnerable.

Greg.

Whatever you perceive you have "uncovered" about me is simply your
construction. It is not likely to have anything to do with me.

Your statement is a hollow declaration.

If you are saying that your discovery is that I have spanked
children, you
are wrong.

What would lead you to that conclusion? I've made no such claim or
even hinted at it. I'm not like you.

I have raised 4 children and two step-children. I have never
spanked any of them. I believe it is up to parents to decide which
methods
of disclipline to use. Spanking is not my choice for a number of
reasons.

I believe that those that turn their back on abuse by the statement
you just made are conspirators of abuse.

But, again, families vary tremendously. Children are different.
Parents
are different. Situations are different. So, whether to spank or
not to
spank is up to the parent's descreation.

There are more than enough parenting strategies to cover all
contingencies you point out, the differences, and situations, that do
not include spanking. Many of the challenges children present, if not
organic dysfunction ( and who would punish a broken person? ) are
created by the parents who operate on a punishment mindset instead of
a teaching minset.

It most certainly is NOT a decision the government has any right in
making,
as current law in all fifty states makes clear.

At least 7 countries have made such a decision, and over thirty states
in their education departments. So claiming the rightness of an act by
calling on majority is starting to wear kind of thin.

Ready to come clean yet, Dung?


About what? I have always been forthright in this forum. The only
mysteries are those you harbor in your head. You just shared with us
one of
your guesses. You were wrong.

You just tried to make out that I claimed you were a spanker, not you
follow it up with the claim that it was one of my guesses. You don't
know what I might think about you.

Ready to guess again?

I don't guess. I extrapolate from evidence observed.

You, on the other hand, seem to do quite a bit of guessing or out and
out lying. Misleading.

You are a slimy little snake with an agenda. I've offered you the
chance to come clean and you pretend nicely that you are what you
appear to be.

I don't believe what you claim about yourself, Dung.

Kane

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:15:44 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
om...

[]
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause
you
pain and humiliate you?
[]

Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.

BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old.
After
just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I
wish I had
tried this sooner.

It is interesting to see the beginning of a child controlling an
adult. By ten or so he will have you responsible for all his
undesirable behavior, one way or another.

And fascinating to see yet another adult that didn't have the
intelligence to child proof a home with a two year old in it and
choose bullying instead.

It's also very obvious that you are lying for effect, Jayne.

Jayne

Kane

Kane writes:

My answer to your question, "Who else's would it be?" is, I didn't
percieve being hit.

Hi, Kane!

Those who have resorted to violence against children have many
explanations -- some plausable, some not. Younger people's explanations
are usually along the lines of, "he started it," or "I had to make a point
so no one else would bother me," or "he hit me first."

If you, as you say, did not perceive yourself being hit, you may have
justified your use of violence as making a point or in another way.

School officials and other authorities you call social controllers are
accustomed to the excuses and generally respond by punishing both of the
combatants.

We were both lucky that we grew up in a different age. Today, a child who
repeatedly injured other children would find himself subject to
"interventions" by assorted species of bureaucrats convinced that the
"problem must be in the home." If a given child repeatedly breaks the noses
of his peers, the do-gooders would want to know where the child learned his
violent ways. They would project into the future and find the child "at
risk" of horrendous, evil deeds associated with increasing violence. The
violent presenting behavior of the 11-year-old would trip a lot of
"indicators" on the inevitable "risk assessment tools" the bureaucrats would
use in assessing the child's family.

Can you imagine how many little boxes a CPS worker would check off if, in
the process of "assessing" the family, she learned that one of the parents
actually enrolled the violent "offender" in a martial arts class?

Can you imagine the "risk" the CPS worker would assess if a parent became
angry during her "assessment" of the home?

"Why the hell are you checking the contents of my fridge when the complaint
here is that my kid broke the nose of a bully who was older and bigger than
he was?" dad asks in frustration. "Why are you asking me how much my uncle
on my mother's side drank and whether my parents spanked me as a child," mom
demands.

"Ah, haaaa!" writes the caseworker. "So, that's where the child's 'anger'
comes from!"

How would you have fared, at 11 years old, in a "psychological evaluation"
ordered by the CPS worker. Would the social worker across from you with the
clipboard understand your validation of why you broke all of those noses of
all of those children? Would she accept your explanation that the victims
were bullies? That they hit you first? That you had to make a point so
other bullies wouldn't hurt you? That they "started it."

In the process of her assessment, the CPS worker should talk to the multiple
victims involved. We are all sure, of course, that those kids (teenagers or
younger) are going to be truthful and explain that the altercations were all
their fault, right? They are all going to say that they started it. That
they hit first. That they were bullies. Right? Or are they, in the
parlance of children the world over, going to say that, "he started it," "he
hit first," "he was a bully." They will be talking to CPS, afterall.

Imagine how your parents or foster caregivers would have fared after all of
the "risk assessments" and investigative paperwork was completed. In the
words of Martina McBride, "where would you be."

Under current CPS policy and procedure, using current risk assessment tools,
the violent child would be a clear candidate for "protective custody." CPS
would determine he would need to be taken out of the home environment that
contributed to his "acting out" and placed into foster care to give the
parents time to get their act together.

It is important to keep in mind that the majority of children forcibly
removed from their homes and placed into foster care by CPS were not abused!
The vast majority of "substantiated" cases are for RISK of abuse or neglect.
And a whopping 103,144 children removed in 2001 were UNSUBSTANTIATED for
either risk of or actual abuse/neglect (around 25% of the children placed in
foster care). http://tinyurl.com/9psd

Once the nose-breaking, violent child was in foster care, the parents would
have accept "services" to get the child back. These cookie-cutter services
would likely include psychotherapy, beginning with a psychological
evaluation by one of CPS's stable of contracted therapists, parenting
classes, and anger control classes/counseling.
These will be scheduled during the day, so the parents will have to ask
their employers for some "adjustments" of their work schedule. The parents
will, no doubt, try to explain the "illogical" reasons why the government
has ordered them to undergo therapy, but the boss assumes he knows what CPS
does (they deal with child abusers, right?) so he figures "where there's
smoke there's fire."

But, wait...there's still more.

After the classes, the psych evals, the therapy, the anger management
counseling (remember when dad and mom were upset over the family history and
food reserve part of the assessments), the parents will now have to prove
that little Kane will no longer break the noses of other children if he
comes home. The parents will have to prove that they have learned by
jumping through the hoops how to better supervise little Kane.

CPS and now the court will want to know if the parents have "got their act
together" before they are willing to sacrifice the federal flow of funding
they are receiving for little Kane's stay in foster care and return him to
his parents. The "team" (GAL's, caseworkers, CPS supervisor, Juvenile
Officer, assorted consultants and other species of jacklegs) will have to
agree that the parents are fit for reunification.

Meanwhile, under concurrent planning, the foster caregivers of little Kane
have grown fond of his gentle nature. Since they have no additional
children of their own, the risk of broken noses is not of importance to
them. They let their caseworker know they would like to adopt.

Now, its a close call for the "team." They have to weigh what is in Kane's
best interests. Which "home" would be best for the 11-year-old? Not an
easy decision. It is difficult to get the GAL, CPS caseworkers, foster
caregivers, consultants, supervisors, lawyers, child advocates, CPS
supervisors, foster care workers and other team members to agree. It will
take time.

And...well, since the last hearing, things have come up. One of the parents
have lost their job (the "appointments" with therapists and the stigma of
being a child abuser have taken their toll). There is less income for the
family -- something that members of the "team" have "concerns" about. And,
despite all that anger management counseling, the parents seem to be getting
more upset the longer this whole thing drags out. The foster caregiver, who
is now effectively an adversary in a custody battle over little Kane,
reported to the team that little Kane is "acting out" after visits with his
parents. He throws tandrums when the visits are over...."violent" tandrums.
Oh, oh. So much to consider. A lot of concerns. The team will need time
to sort it all out.

The average stay in foster care currently is around 2 years.

ASFA mandates that adoption be considered after the child has been in state
custody for 15 of the last 22 months.

I understood
you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in
fear. You
spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your
mild
manner made you an easy target.

"A lot of time?" Where did I mention how much time it took? Usual an
encounter with a bully, if you don't back down, takes just a couple of
seconds.

"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF
TIME dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild mannered
one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I broke." (Your
quote, emphasis mine).

Once other children learned that you could
hit after age 11, they left you alone.

Funny about that.

You got a problem with it?


No. In another era, like today, a lot of social service bureaucrats would
have "concerns" about it.

Of course not. So you can readily see that hitting children is
violence. You aren't going to try and claim that spanking does not
require the action of hitting, are you?

Yes, I can see that hitting children is violence. I don't know any form of
spanking that does not involve hitting. But spanking is entirely different
that hitting children in the face with one's fist and breaking their noses.
Both involve hitting. But it is clearly a different kind of hitting.


As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.

Funny how it tapers off quickly. I note a lot of families that have
children that are bullied take them off to a martial arts training.
Usually one of the striking disciplines such as Tae Kwan Do.

Oh.

I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

That's odd. I consider many that you either don't engage and correct
as bullies of members of this group. Why is it you pick and choose
just as you do?

I am not picking on you, Kane. Really.

My point is that the system currently in place is likely to respond
incorrectly to the set of facts you have shared and that system needs to be
reformed.

You and I were lucky to have grown up in a different time. We were able to
flourish, as you described, being raised by our families.

Friday, the 24th of October, 2003

Doug writes:
It is important to keep in mind that the majority of children forcibly
removed from their homes and placed into foster care by CPS were not
abused!
The vast majority of "substantiated" cases are for RISK of abuse or
neglect.
And a whopping 103,144 children removed in 2001 were UNSUBSTANTIATED
for
either risk of or actual abuse/neglect (around 25% of the children
placed in
foster care). http://tinyurl.com/9psd

If this is true, then every CPS caseworker having removed a single
one of these 103,144 children should be doing life in prison
for violation of Section 241 or 242 of the United States Code.

No child should ever be removed from any home without conviction
of the parents in a jury trial for abuse or neglect of that
child, and prior prescription by law of removal of that child from
the home as part of the punishment. Short of that, the CPS worker
is committing kidnap to take a child away from a parent.

Consider the law, taken from
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html:

Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by
the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because
of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway,
or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent
or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right
or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than ten years, or both; and if death results
from the acts committed in violation of this section
or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any
term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death

Oh, I guess maybe that should be the death penalty for kidnap.
And what if it's just a single caseworker, and not conspiracy, you
say? Well, then we have Section 242:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person
in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments,
pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an
alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation
of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts
include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this
title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.

So, why not skip over this "go-to-a sequence-of-hearings-to-plead
-with-them-to-get-my-kids-back" stuff and simply file criminal
charges? Prosecute the hell out of any CPS caseworker removing
children from homes where the parents have not been convicted
by a jury of criminal abuse or neglect. Put those CPS caseworkers
in prison, where they belong. Cut them precisely zero slack.

Mike Morris
)

Julie,

Julie Pascal wrote: (to me)

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

I understand that you are, or were, in the Air Force. Having never been a
member of the military, I cannot comment on your experiences. I do know that
children are not members of the military. And what we are talking about on
alt.parenting.spanking is the practice of physically hitting children in the
name of discipline.

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

Well, guess what? I'm an advocate for raising children within punishment. I
advocate raising children with firm guidance and appropriate limits. This can
be accomplished without punishment. I don't advocate parenting with physical
discomfort, nor I advocate parenting with emotional and psychological
discomfort, manipulation, or guilt. And when this happens, I recommend parents
apologize to their children, for none of is perfect.

LaVonne



--Julie

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:



Julie Pascal wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and
zealots about it."

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for anyone
over the age of 18.

Take it up with the Supreme Court, LaVonne. What's next? Are you reading
Miranda's rights to you kids too, LaVonne? ;-)

And the facts are clearly outlined in the research, should anyone care to
investigate. Spanking is a risk factor that positively correlates with both
short and long term negative outcomes. So, spanking zealots have neither
logic or fact on their side, Julie.

Who are the spanking zealots? IS THERE ANYONE HERE ON THIS NEWSGROUP THAT
MANDATE THAT YOU MUST SPANK YOUR KIDS???

Without logic or fact why should it *not* be left up to individuals?

If logic or fact were absent in the case of spanking, you would have a
point. Since neither logic nor fact can support spanking, it's time for
outside intervention.

Oops! LaVonne attempting to be an emperor again. Do you I need to point
out that you have no clothes on! ;-)

Doan