Saturday, May 31, 2008

For the sake of accuracy ...

The Texas Department of Protective and Family Services has adopted a new motto on its logo. However, given the agency's behavior during the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup, the new slogan seemed both cliched and inaccurate, so I took a stab at improving it for them:

Whaddya think?

Also why do readers think that conservative bloggers tend to oppose the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup, while liberal bloggers seem more likely to support it?

29 comments:

diogenes said...

They need to have something like the new TYC logo that makes it look like the youth is running for his life. Maybe make the letters look like buses and armored personnel carriers for taking away children under gunpoint.

Anonymous said...

Kinda chickenshit, IMO, but slightly amusing since I know there is no malice in your heart.

I do hope that the Eldorado fiasco doesn't too badly tarnish the good work CPS does in other venues.

Plato

beowulf1723 said...

The figure needs to be wearing a brown shirt and a Sam Brown belt, nicht wahr? ;)

Note to Plato:

The CPS does do good work in other areas, but this isn't one of the best moments.

You might consider that they are being used by a small group of bigots. This mess has really put a strain on them, and they should be complaining about it and not just going along for the ride.

Fred said...

Plato,

Foster care is a toxic intervention, to be used sparingly. In the case of the Yearning for Zion ranch, Texas prescribed megadoses of foster care.

Everything CPS does in removal of children can only be as good as foster care, and never any better.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

"I do hope that the Eldorado fiasco doesn't too badly tarnish the good work CPS does in other venues.

Indeed, that's something they should have considered before launching this ill-conceived fiasco, isn't it?

These people made their bed in chickenshit, Plato - they can lie in it.

Anonymous said...

Hey, kbp, you got a hat tip from that site that grits linked to!

http://lonestartimes.com/2008/05/31/flds-gets-walthered-again/

doran williams said...

I suggest that all who are going to be following this case in the near future buy an uptodate copy of the Texas Family Code. There is a lot of quoting from, referring to, and interpreting of the Code going on in this discussion, and the situation is loaded for misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information. Of all of which there has been an abundance in the past few days on this blog.

For instance, if you don't have a current version of the Code to look at, you can't be entirely sure that what is being quoted here is in fact from the most recent version. And the quotes alone will not provide any court interpretations which will help you understand and apply the Code to this Eldorado case.

If all who are involved get copies of the Code, it won't be necessary to use up Grit's storage space with extensive quotes. And you won't have to wonder if what is being quoted is out-of-date as a result of being amended or repealed by the Legislature. We can just say "Look at section 261.3031" and we will all be on the same page, in a manner of speaking.

What is even better than the bare-bones Code, is an annotated Code. This means there are references to and quoted material from appellate court opinions interpreting and applying the various sections which have been litigated.

And what is even better than an annotated Code is an annotated Code with Commentary and practice notes. These are generally written by or under the direction of practitioners and/or judges who are generally recognized as "experts" in the field of Family Law. You might have to buy a second volume to get the Commentaries and practice notes.

The best publications will have the Code, Commentaries, practice notes, and additional statutory material, such as the rules of procedure, rules of evidence, and rules of appellate procedure all in one volume.

If you live in a city in which there is a law school, there is probably a bookstore nearby the law school which will have these books. If not, publishers like Thomson West and Jones McClure publish very useful paperback editions of the Code. You might be able to find some of these on Amazon.

Again, I strongly recommend you get a current Code. Spend a few minutes going through the Table of Contents for Title 5, Subtitle E to familiarize yourself with the terrain. Then spend an hour or two in Chapters 261 and 262 and the annotations and Commentaries in those chapters.

If you do this, tx probably won't be nearly so free and easy with his pronunciamentos on the law as he has been recently. And, you will have a better grasp of what the attorneys for the parents and kids are doing.

kbp said...

Anon 11:37

Thanks for pointing that out! The more important part of that "hat tip" was the fact I was identified as a "Grits commenter".

The real "hat tip" is to Grits, for all the effort he's made to help the sun shine in on this mess!

We all owe a big "THANK YOU" to, Scott!

He's dedicated quite a bit of time in this effort.


********


Ted Clayton

Your comment at the last post on the actions of Walthers is dead on with what I was trying to point out about her adding fire to storm a civil complaint will reveal.

I see the Hilderbran action as the start of evidence of malice. If they get past summary judgment, which I believe they will, then Walthers action is on the table for the JURY to consider, a FEDERAL CASE JURY, not one a state judge controls.

The inconsistency of Walthers in following rules and procedures could easily add a digit or two to the final tally Texas will pay.

She THE judge that ignored motions and objections as she abused what is within her discretion to take the children hostage using an "en masse" hearing.

Now she feels it's important to follow the rules beyond the standard generally practiced in Texas, and more specifically, by herself?

FWIW, this topic is a legitimate one, but I felt it was time to toss in better conversation than all the BS we were seeing addressing Walthers efforts to muddy the waters in a battle she is losing anyway. She can't keep condemning the entire community for much longer.

Charles said...

Just thought I would pass this on it is a great clip I think;

http://www.truthwillprevail.org/index.php?parentid=1&index=37

kbp said...

Sorry, that should have read:

"She's THE judge that ignored motions and objections as she abused her discretion to take the children hostage using an "en masse" hearing."

David said...

We all owe a big "THANK YOU" to, Scott!

Geez, kbp, dude's head is already so big that the last time I saw him he looked like the Hindenburg with legs.

lowery.shirley said...

Beginning Monday morning I will be putting yellow ribbons in every place possible and they will stay until the children come home.
Hope you guys will do the same and also help get the word out in whatever way possible.

kbp said...

LOL!!!

David,

When anyone steps forward to help somehow to protect the rights of individuals, while knowing some of them may be guilty, I could care less how big headed they get!

I'll continue to praise them for what they're doing.

kbp said...

.
FYI
.
walthers is still Top Left Column of the
Drudge Report for the busy weekend reader count. Hats off to that Texas legcay! (our new noun! so drop the upper case "w", she doesn't deserve it anyway)

lowery.shirley said...

"I do hope that the Eldorado fiasco doesn't too badly tarnish the good work CPS does in other venues."

CPS pulls this crap all of the time so I hope the good, the bad and the ugly are all exposed so we can see which pile is the biggest.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Just put up a new Eldorado post about Judge Walther's behavior yesterday.

I appreciate the kudos KBP, but to be honest you've given me about half or more of the links I've blogged on since this started.

Dave - I know I can count on you and yours to keep me from getting a big head.

sunray's wench said...

"no child left with mom"

I may be being particularly dense, but I dont understand the tag line.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Sunray, the reference is to the FLDS Moms waiting to get their kids back.

rage said...

I can absolutely see why liberals would be more likely to support the FLDS in this one. That's assuming, of course, that you use the purist version of 'liberal' and 'conservative,' as opposed to the bastardized version that has hit the parties.

Liberals are more likely to feel that the ends justify he means. Period.

I wonder where your buddy the judge from Galveston would have fallen in all of this. She and this judge seem to share the same prima-donna attitude.

W. W Woodward said...

Why do Liberals tend to support the Great CPS ElDorado Raid? That one's easy.

Liberals are very concerned about civil rights - theirs - not yours or anyone else's, just theirs.

I notice that almost every story in the MSM about the Great Raid mentions that the LDS renounced polygamy over a hundred years ago.

Read some Utah history. You'll find that the US government coerced the LDS into "renouncing" plural marriage. The church did not voluntarily "renounce" anything.

The 1st amendment didn't seem to mean any more to ?Honest? Abe Lincoln and his congress than it does to so-called liberals today.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I also think leftists have less respect for the unique nature of the parent/child bond than most conservatives, and, trusting the state more than conservatives do, they are quite willing to entrust other people's children to the State.

Ted Clayton said...

Doran Williams 12:58 -

Thanks for the really-helpful description of code resources! I did Google some of TxBluesMan's code-citations, and did pull up some raw on-line stuff. It was pretty raw, maybe only fragments, but it's also possible the real "base" code is all available online. I will search more, and post any good results I find back here. BUT, I seriously doubt I'd be amazed to find any "annotated, commented, practice notes"-enhanced versions of the code, free-online! These better forms of the code sound to me like they're worth real money.

GritsForBreakfast -

Why do liberals tend to go along with the raid on the FLDS, while conservatives tend to be offended?

Liberals are uncomfortable because the FLDS are arch-conservatives, and they are religious. Worse, the FLDS - exposed to the light of scrutiny - prove to be rather attractive and commendable people. Update their courtin' & marryin' notions to nominally fit within the law, and these folks will be exemplars. They will give the Amish a run for their claim to fame. This is all a downer for the world-view that liberals prefer & work toward.

Conservatives are alarmed that the State is taking a very special legal dispensation that enables a partially extra-legal response to intervene on behalf of endangered kids - and using it to beat up on an unpopular group whom they hope can be run outa that state. Conservatives are uncomfortable with the idea of Government-as-growth-industry, striving to whittle the individual & citizen down to an irrelevant size.

beowulf1723 11:03 -

I took German from a fine gentleman who as a pubescent boy survived/escaped the firebombing of Dresden, sojourned with crude hillbills in the Black Forest (lost his family), and made his way to the USA. "Ya, nicht wahr?" ;-)

Bubbi said...

Their is no better way to change society than through her kids.
That is what we have with our progressive liberals.

They do not care for homeschooling, religion, and any other form of individualism.

Those with a more conservative view get a bit nervous when they see civil rights being stomped on.

Of course this is a simplistic view but this isn't the place for a long post.

I left TX in 88' and now live in WI. 5 grand kids in public school and I have become an itch they can not scratch away.

John said...

Re: Liberal support vs Conservative opposition to the raid.

I've noticed the same thing myself in Usenet discussion.

In what I've seen, liberal women are supportive of the raid and in this instance disregard civil rights and due process. They also express some anger at the FLDS women for submitting to an abusive patriarchy. I think the women see it as a feminist issue.

In the newsgroups I follow, liberal men are either silent on the FLDS raid, or offer tame criticism of it. My guess is, their silence is to not offend their normal allies among the women.

Men who identify themselves as conservative generally condemn the raid, especially the Texas contingent. However, one fanatic conservative (a true believer in the Hoover Institute) strongly supports the raid.

I think there is a strong feminist component in support of the raid.

There is also tremendous ignorance of the realities of foster care. The supporters feel that CPS will provide better for the children than those "Stepford wives." Pointing out that CPS is criminally underfunded has no effect on their pious hopes.

For myself, I identify myself as a liberal and this raid horrifies me. In the Usenet discussion, I have held my own (I think) opposing the raid. But in my next incarnation, I do not want to come back as a defense lawyer. Gawd, what a job! I hope I can stay with computer programming.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I think another reason is that there are two types of 'liberals.' Leftists, comfortable with social engineering, ends justifies the means methods and uncomfortable with individualism, as somebody else pointed out, are largely in favor of the raid. The Constitution is just a piece of paper unless it can be used to further some cherished aim.

But I do have liberal friends who would consider themselves Jeffersonian liberals, and they cherish the Constitutional rights and freedoms we all have, and would not see them abridged for anybody, no matter how distasteful they might find a particular group.

Where there are conservatives who applaud the raid, I would suspect that they are Republicans rather than Conservative.

Anonymous said...

Charles Kiker from Tulia here:

Grits, you say conservative bloggers "tend" to go against the Eldorado raid, and liberal bloggers "seem" to support it. I'm glad you used the words "tend" and "seem". I usually tend to agree with you, but something inside me seems to disagree here. (I used at least three CYA qualifiers in the previous sentence.) But I have a question about the definition of a blogger. Is that someone who maintains a blog, which I do not. Or is a blogger someone who follows some blogs like Grits and the Friends of Justice blog, which I do? So, I don't know whether I'm a blogger or not. And I think the words "liberal" and "conservative" can no longer serve as identifiers. But, having said that, I suppose I'm a liberal with some pronounced libertarian instincts. I certainly cannot identify with what passes as conservatism these days. I was horrified by the Eldorado thing from day one as a libertarian, but as a liberal progressive I was and remain concerned for the well-being of children at YFZ, and everywhere. A liberal relative asked me, "Do you think the state should just leave the Mormons alone?" My response was that the Mormons (fundamentalist or not) should have the same constitutional protections that Methodists and Baptists have. They should have but history shows they have not had those protections. They were persecuted by the state in earlier days. And this thing "seems" (CYA again) to have been organized and intentional state persecution of FLDS at YFZ, using welfare of the children as their cover. Is Judge Walthers a liberal or a conservative? I don't know what her political persuasion is, but I would guess that she wraps herself in the conservative mantle. Governor Perry and AG Abbot are certainly self-described conservatives who supported the raid.

I'm tired of writing this, and if perchance anybody is reading it, they're probably tired of it too.

So, in the words of McLaughlin,
"Bye bye." (Is McLaughlin a conservative or a liberal? Yes.)

Charles Kuffner said...

"Also why do readers think that conservative bloggers tend to oppose the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup, while liberal bloggers seem more likely to support it?"

Well, this liberal blogger has been very vocal in his opposition to CPS's actions. Let's please not paint with too broad a brush.

Cicero said...

On Liberals vs Conservatives:

I think it is good to point out that several liberals have opposed the raid, while several conservatives have supported it.

This has been a great comfort to me to realize that libertarian ideas are still active on both sides of the liberal and conservative divide.

That said, I too have noticed a tendency of conservative opposing while liberals support.

The Headmistress has given some good reasons. I think another reason is that since Ronald Reagen, Conservatives and Libertarians have had an on again, off again political alliance.

Indeed there is the influential fusionist movement (spearheaded by National Review, and Buckley) which advocates a union between libertarian and conservative politics.

All of this means that even if a conservative does not have libertarian leanings himself, he is far more likely to have been exposed to libertarian philosophies and view them at least as potential political allies. Thus a libertarian argument receives some consideration from a conservative even if he doesn't agree with it himself.

Similar connections between the left and libertarians exist, but seem to be more fragile and less extensive. Or at least... more focused around alliances on specific issues rather then full scale philosophical reconciliation.

Anonymous said...

Well. I'm as slap-dab bleeding-heart tree-hugging liberal feminist as they come, and as personally horrifying as I find FLDS tenets to be, I'm more horrified by the blatant disregard for civil rights and due process.

Ripping newborns from their mothers' arms without proven cause just ain't right.

As much as I have appreciated bloggers like Grits and Brooke Adams, it was the CPS news interviews that first raised my hairs. The spokeswoman definitely made it sound, in those early days, as if hundreds of abused women had gratefully fled along with their children after the raid. "Everyone is here out of their own free will; they came voluntarily and they can leave at any time," she insisted, and I bought it - until I heard the reporter's shouted (and ignored) question: "But how can they leave behind their children?" That was the first obvious crack in CPS's facade, and they have generated more of their own rope for hangin' with their press releases than I've ever seen.