Escorts Cheer CA Decision

[Antigen]

Youth Discipline Industry News
 
The Voice of the Teen Suppression Market Since 1979

March 6, 1998

Escorts Cheer CA Decision

Promise more efficient transportings

Transport service spokespeople are celebrating this week's decision by an Oakland, California court upholding parental seizure orders - a decision which, they say, will encourage more parents to step forward and allow their children to be incarcerated.
 



"This is a definite plus for the entire industry," says Tony Ace, an official at HotLink Transport Services. "Up until now, there was a lot of concern that this might lead to a decline in interest in locking up independent-minded teens. This is the kind of decision that might have really cast a chill over the industry, so we're all lucky it turned out this way."
 

 




Escorts are hoping restrictions
on use of force can be modified
following the decision.
 





The next step, say industry representatives, is to lobby for less restrictive rules on use of force in subduing smart-alecky adolescents.

"People refuse to understand the need for excessive force," says one transport professional. "They think just because you're surprising the kid in his bed, or because the kid is a wiseass poetic type rather than your stereotypical troublemaker, that it's going to be easy cuffing him. They don't understand that you're sending a signal to the child. That first chokehold really establishes the relationship in terms of who's in charge."

"Many parents are concerned when we come to grab their kids out of their beds, because some of these kids are really rebellious," agrees another industry source. "But if we're allowed to use effective means of neutralizing their freedom-loving teens without fear of legal action, they feel much more comfortable."

"But there's no such thing as a bad kid," he adds.

Industry officials also applauded the decision's potential for allowing a broader definition of Attention Deficit Disorder.

"There was a feeling that because this kid [in the Oakland case] did not take drugs or drink alcohol, was nonviolent, and was never arrested, that he might be a poor candidate for incarceration," says Hotlinks' Ace. "But with the ADD diagnosis, the parents were able to demonstrate that he was a potential problem, and take preventive action, which is something the industry has been pushing hard for. If a kid is on the wrong track, if for example your teen shows signs of being homosexual or lesbian, the law has to allow you to take action before that becomes a problem. That's the real message of this decision."

http://www.simpleton.com/19980306.html

Of course it's satire! :lol:

The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.
--William Safire

[Hamiltonf]

When you know what is being satirized.

I don't think the following is satire:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... WS6218.dtl

The whole war on drugs and youth is part of state terrorism:

let me see:
US Army manual:
 "the caculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature.... through intimidation,, coercion, or instilling fear."

Isn't that what all of these programs are based on?

[Antigen]

Indeed. Here's some very eloquent straight prose written by a friend to another list.


I?m using extreme examples to illustrate a point:

There?s a difference between people who are pro-life and those that are pro-life that would bomb a clinic.

There?s a difference between Islamic fundamentalists who believe women should not receive an education and Islamic fundamentalists who bomb girls schools in Afghanistan killing innocent girls (there have been 8 such bombings in post war Afghanistan).

There?s a difference between people who passionately oppose U.S. foreign policy and those that would terrorize innocent Americans because of that foreign policy.

There?s a difference between people who passionately support a political leader or philosophy and those that would impose that political party by force.

 

In sum, its important to make a distinction between a person?s ideology and their methodology. The ends do not justify the means.

 

For some, the end result of Straight is and was a desirable outcome: living a clean and sober and productive life. For some people, their ideology matches with straight. However, this simply can never justify Straight?s ruthless methodology of torture and violation of basic human rights and dignities. In fact, I believe people?s inability to make this distinction is precisely why Straight got away with so much. Police, parents, the community, child welfare services, the executive staff, etc were willing to turn a blind eye to what they inheritably knew was wrong as long as they believed Straight ?worked? when I believe whether it worked or not is totally irrelevant just as I believe terrorism is wrong even if I fully agreed 100% with the ideology of the terrorists and believed their end objectives were honorable and just, I would not support the methodology. For example, one could argue that The ELF (Earth Liberation Front) goals of saving the Earth are good, but their methods of burning down houses and destroying personal property are simply inexcusable.  It really isn?t very difficult to make this distinction and know where to draw the line between ethical ways to promote your ideology and unethical ways.

 

My 2 cents,
John W.

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism--how passionately I hate them!
--Albert Einstein