On 2005-03-02 21:24:00, Deborah wrote:
"How was it that HRS took over? The local authorities could?ve taken independent action had they chosen to. Or am I missing something? What would/or did prevent civil actions by the victims in those cases? Short of being incarcerated and having no contact with the outside world, which regs could prevent, if enforced.
No, you're not missing anything.
Here's an article that tells most of the story.
"The charges we received ? of assaults, batteries, false imprisonment ? are serious abuses," said Gardner. "I decided not to prosecute the staff of Straight, but to turn over the investigation to HRS for corrective action."
http://fornits.com/anonanon/articles/20 ... 11-239.htmAs to why he turned it over to HRS and why and how HRS was cowed into backing off, that's a complex political story, just like every other complex political story. In the simplest of terms, it was a whitewash that continues to this day. When Straight headquarters in St. Pete finally shut down in `93, they left programs operating under various names in several states. At the end of the day, nothing significant has changed. A few people got nice civil settlements, good for them (I mean that) but the beating goes on.
In the long run, stronger regulations may prove to be no better. The difference I?m talking about is not increasing the general powers of CPS as it pertains to removing children from their homes. It has to do with creating stronger regs for RTCs and a stronger requirement of states to enforce them.
That's how it always starts. But remember that any state regulation is written, debated, edited, and eventually negotiated into law by politicians. And it gets even more convoluted when it comes to implimentatin.
I agree with your argument in theory. I can?t fathom how ridding the country of DHS/CPS might be accomplished. Suggestions? It feels like a pipe dream to me.
I want the Old Deal back, damn it! LOL I know, it really is a pipe dream at this point. But then, so was the American Revolution up until the battle at King's Mountain, 7 Oct 1780.
In the meantime? working for stronger regs and enforcement doesn?t seem like a waste of time or contradictory, as an interim strategy, for the little protection it can provide. Since the system isn't going away, it should be the best it can be, given the level of corruption, which will ALWAYS be a factor when money is involved, with or without DHS.
I'm w/ P.J. O'Rourke on this one; "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." I think more and stronger regs and enforcement can, and usually do, do more harm than good. But I also recognize that taking that position puts me in the distinct minority, waving affectionately accross the void to a whole lot of people who I respect and admire.
So even though I disagree w/ their stated goal of more and better regulation, I entheusiastically cheer and endorse their employment of the Vth Estate of government to bring about their goal. Not only do I think that will do a world of good for the situation, but it also shows faith in their convictions. Upton Sinclair failed misserably at his stated goal when he wrote
The Jugle. "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach," he said. The result, which he never seemed to fully appreciate, was one of the Federal regulations that I actually agree with; the Pure Food and Drug Labeling Act. The original intent was to take up the slack left by the dissolusion of small, rural communities when people moved into big cities in droves to take industrial jobs.
The basic idea was to require anyone selling any food or drug to label it for what it was, including all ingredients and limiting the amount of foreign matter in any product. That, all by itself, effectively shut down the trade in morphene and cocaine based patent medicines. As soon as Aunt Polly realized that the "health tincture" she'd been spoon feeding Tom was 30% pure liquid cocaine, she quit doing it.
If only we could have stopped there and not proceeded to start telling Aunt Polly that synthetic cocaine by Rx is good for high strung young boys and that cannabis tincture is deadly toxic poison w/ no medical value whatever and then setting up the apparatus to have her thrown in prison for refusing to believe it.
Bottomline, when I envision a country with no DHS and no regulations, for the little they are worth currently, it doesn't look pretty. I envision hundreds of TLCs (not to single them out) and no one aware of what's going on, because there is no entity with the authority to go in and investigate the self-regulating private corporations, therefore no media attention, therefore no public awareness. Further, the kids may not be allowed ANY contact with their parents. How would any abuse be reported under those conditions? If you have a different, more positive image, please share.
Ok, how about this. 20 years from now, when our grandkids are considering how best to deal w/ their rebellious or troubled kids, the media will have so worn this story as to bore most kids to tears if they tried to run it again. The troubled parent industry will have been relegated to the musty, dusty halls of history along w/ things like ECT, amphetamine 'therapy' for overly bright and energetic children and
The Malleus Maleficarum. But I'm sure they'll have come up w/ new and more interesting quack theories, so they won't want for things to talk about and those dear future grandkids will probably have no trouble inventing new rites of passage. And, of course, if they do have trouble, they can always count on Grams for a safe, comfy welcome and some old-school advice.
"
Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity AnonymousSome days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
