The 'Nanny State'

[TheChamp]

Teaching Kids to Mistrust Government Makes Couple ‘Unsuitable’ Parents

Stepehn C. Webster
True Slant
April 2, 2010

Texans, beware: If you teach your kids that the “government is out to harm them,” police in Williamson County might just deem you an “unsuitable” parent.

That startling claim, leveled by officers in Child Protective Services documents detailing an investigation into an Austin-area activist couple, should be enough to give reason for pause to any staunch conservative in the state.

The allegation was made against drug reform activist filmmakers Barry and Candi Cooper, whose home was recently raided and searched after the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department claimed Barry’s voice was heard in the background audio of an allegedly false police report.

Police: Teaching Kids to Mistrust Government Makes Couple ‘Unsuitable’ Parents - Stephen C. Webster - Brave New Hooks - True/Slant

[TheChamp]

oops double post -edited-

[soothsayer]

don't forget to keep a copy of ' mein kampf', er, i mean 'inconvenient truth' conspicuously laid out on the coffee table, just in case the gestapo pass by... er, i mean census worker.

[lsbskins1]

Teaching Kids to Mistrust Government Makes Couple ‘Unsuitable’ Parents

Stepehn C. Webster
True Slant
April 2, 2010

Texans, beware: If you teach your kids that the “government is out to harm them,” police in Williamson County might just deem you an “unsuitable” parent.

That startling claim, leveled by officers in Child Protective Services documents detailing an investigation into an Austin-area activist couple, should be enough to give reason for pause to any staunch conservative in the state.

The allegation was made against drug reform activist filmmakers Barry and Candi Cooper, whose home was recently raided and searched after the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department claimed Barry’s voice was heard in the background audio of an allegedly false police report.

Police: Teaching Kids to Mistrust Government Makes Couple ‘Unsuitable’ Parents - Stephen C. Webster - Brave New Hooks - True/Slant

Ummm...I think this might have more to do with the fact the parents encourage and allow a freakin 7 year old to smoke pot. I think it should be legal and would remove a 7 year old from a home where parents encourage that child to smoke pot. Another misleading post.

[TheChamp]

Ummm...I think this might have more to do with the fact the parents encourage and allow a freakin 7 year old to smoke pot. I think it should be legal and would remove a 7 year old from a home where parents encourage that child to smoke pot. Another misleading post.

No, they did not, that was made up and they completely contested that. In a world where cops invent probable cause and CPS makes up excuses to kidnap children, you want more nanny state?
The cops had no evidence, proof, or even reports of their children smoking pot under the encouragement of the parents. Welcome to America!

[TheChamp]

Another new nanny state tool are these naked body scanners, which violate child pornography laws!

[TheChamp]

Girl Arrested for Doodling Sues New York City

Michelle Ruiz
AOL News
April 3, 2010

When 12-year-old Alexa Gonzalez was caught doodling on her desk at Junior High School 190 in Queens, New York, she expected detention and an afternoon on desk-cleaning duty. Instead, she was arrested, led out of her school in handcuffs and detained at a local police precinct for hours, she said.

Two months after the incident, Gonzalez and her mother, Maraima Comacho, are suing the New York City Education Department and the New York Police Department for $1 million in damages, claiming excessive use of force and violation of the girl’s rights in the ordeal, which Comacho has called a “nightmare.”

“We want to stop this from happening to other young children in the future,” the family’s lawyer, Joseph Rosenthal, told the New York Daily News.

Read entire article



Great-grandmother given an electronic tag and curfew for selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old
Girl Arrested For Doodling on School Desk Sues New York City - AOL News

In the UK:

Laura Roberts
London Telegraph
April 2, 2010

Joan Higgins, a pet shop owner, was caught selling the fish to the teenager in a ’sting’ operation by council officials. She was then prosecuted in an eight month court process estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £20,000.

Under new animal welfare laws, passed in 2006, it is it illegal to sell goldfish to under 16s. Offenders can be punished with up to 12 months in prison.

Mrs Higgins, 66, who thought the boy was much older than 14, escaped jail but was instead ordered to wear an electronic tag and given a night time curfew. She was also fined £1,000 by Trafford Magistrates Court.

In July 2009, Trafford council sent a 14 year old boy to the shop and after Mrs Higgins failed to ask the boy for identification she and her son were summoned to court. “The council sent the 14 year old into us – in my book that’s entrapment,” Mr Higgins stated.

Great-grandmother given an electronic tag and curfew for selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old - Telegraph

[Angry Citizen]

So how many years did you spend in jail to develop such a hatred of the cops?

[TheChamp]

None, I've personally witnessed cops both violate their oath to the Constitution as well as the law on repeat occasions. Were you thinking about making a point?

[Angry Citizen]

I'm still waiting for yours. Cops aren't abusing their privileges, at least en masse.

[TheChamp]

Yes of course they are, and I, unlike you, have supported that claim. Cops all over America are abusing their power and forgoing the constitution. Again, did you have a point? There are examples of police corruption in every major city in America. Qualify en masse? What percent? I have no idea, too many incidents unreported to ever know! Of the ones reported alone there is reason to suspect anti-constitutional sentiment in recent federalized police training programs (homeland security). Here is a video of Homeland Security agents teaching cops how to find terrorists:

YouTube - Homeland Security: Police training video

[lsbskins1]

TheChamp -

I'll let you in on a little secret. In order to engender outrage in the general public, you have to present something that is, you know, outrageous. Arresting and beating people for sitting at a lunch counter is outrageous. Turning water hoses and police dogs on peaceful protesters is outrageous. Hanging people, burning their churches and their homes because they wish to register to vote is outrageous. Shooting union members for striking is outrageous.

Shooting a mentally disturbed woman after attempting to for 2 and 1/2 hours to talk her into surrendering after she made threats and barricaded herself into an apartment and made threatening moves towards an officer is tragic, but not outrageous. Erring on the side of safety when removing a child from parents who may be endangering their welfare is not outrageous. Arresting one child for doodling on a desk is probably excessive, but absent a pattern of like behavior against multiple individuals, it is more likely an example of a few people exercising bad judgment than an example of systemic abuse that would be outrageous.

You just keep coming to the table with these trumped up examples of "abuse", that on surface level inspection, fall apart. I believe, with reasonable people, you just are never going to get the reaction you are hoping for.

[TheChamp]

Oh these are small abuses, micro abuses. Want some big ones? No problem! I'll skill Rampart and the Rodney King beatings, something more recent like this:

BART Cops kill a non-violent man after already subdued him:
YouTube - BART cop shoots unarmed black man in back while restrained in had cuffs.

(this video contains murder, don't click if you're weak of heart)

[lsbskins1]

Oh these are small abuses, micro abuses. Want some big ones? No problem! I'll skill Rampart and the Rodney King beatings, something more recent like this:

BART Cops kill a non-violent man after already subdued him:
YouTube - BART cop shoots unarmed black man in back while restrained in had cuffs.

(this video contains murder, don't click if you're weak of heart)

I am familiar with the situation and I have seen footage. From what I have seen, it was unnecessary and the cop in question should be prosecuted. But this is the action of one man. And even though I know that this is not the only unlawful use of force, nor the only death caused by an unlawful use of force, the fact remains that we have the code that says there is such a thing as an unlawful use of force by police officers. We also have laws that say if you are a doctor and you fail to give a minimum standard of treatment, you can be held liable. If 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 doctors were found to have failed in achieving that minimum standard, you would not be calling for revolution against doctors. The truth of the matter is that there are vastly more doctors and vastly more police officers who do their jobs properly and behave in a lawful manner than there are those who don't. The bad actors are not made bad by the system, they are bad in spite of the system because some people are assholes.

[soothsayer]

I can't stand cops, or anyone else like them for one simple reason:

they have a hard time minding their own business.


BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters | How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

[TheChamp]

I am familiar with the situation and I have seen footage. From what I have seen, it was unnecessary and the cop in question should be prosecuted. But this is the action of one man.

Yes, it is the story of one man. One man who was empowered by the state and abused his power. The officer was not screened out for mental health problems? The officer didn't receive enough training to make a reasonable decision?
He wasn't some lone nut, he had a fellow officer there with him, holding the guy down. He was wearing a uniform. He swore an oath to uphold the constitution.

And even though I know that this is not the only unlawful use of force, nor the only death caused by an unlawful use of force, the fact remains that we have the code that says there is such a thing as an unlawful use of force by police officers. We also have laws that say if you are a doctor and you fail to give a minimum standard of treatment, you can be held liable. If 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 doctors were found to have failed in achieving that minimum standard, you would not be calling for revolution against doctors.

Another topic for another place.

The truth of the matter is that there are vastly more doctors and vastly more police officers who do their jobs properly and behave in a lawful manner than there are those who don't. The bad actors are not made bad by the system, they are bad in spite of the system because some people are assholes.

I agree, the system is not inherently bad, it has simply become low quality: like our education system! Officers simply don't receive sufficient training, there aren't sufficient screening processes in place, and requirements to become a police officer are being lowered all the time. Until we solve those problems with the system, I recommend we don't empower these same people further. As we've been switching police side arms for M16 and riot gear, as the patriot act gives comes more excuses to invade your privacy unlawfully, as homeland security is training cops to see campers and homeless people as terrorists we need to step back and realize: man kind made it this far without the nanny state.
You're the one always talking about the need to perfect our systems: do you actually think the way to achieve this is to EMPOWER the system more? Should we give the President no term limits, how about a Congress for life? The system is necessary, but a necessary EVIL that must be kept SMALL and AT BAY LESS IT CONTROL EVERYTHING.

[lsbskins1]

I agree, the system is not inherently bad, it has simply become low quality: like our education system! Officers simply don't receive sufficient training, there aren't sufficient screening processes in place, and requirements to become a police officer are being lowered all the time. Until we solve those problems with the system, I recommend we don't empower these same people further. As we've been switching police side arms for M16 and riot gear, as the patriot act gives comes more excuses to invade your privacy unlawfully, as homeland security is training cops to see campers and homeless people as terrorists we need to step back and realize: man kind made it this far without the nanny state.
You're the one always talking about the need to perfect our systems: do you actually think the way to achieve this is to EMPOWER the system more? Should we give the President no term limits, how about a Congress for life? The system is necessary, but a necessary EVIL that must be kept SMALL and AT BAY LESS IT CONTROL EVERYTHING.

Keeping it small and at bay assures one thing and one thing only, it will be powerless to protect you from what it is there to protect you from. Yes, government is a necessary evil. But the reason it is necessary is that the individual needs the power of the collective voice of all individuals. A weak government introduces the evil to no purpose. We risk the bad officers so that someone is empowered to say, "No, you can't shoot your neighbor without fear of consequence." We risk the corrupt politicians so that someone is empowered to say, "No, you can't dump toxic waste in the public water source without fear of consequence." If the power you grant those charged with protecting you against the more powerful is "small and weak", you have accomplished nothing. If you must call it a "Nanny State", remember this at least, it ain't the average man or woman who needs the "Nanny", it is Exxon/Mobile and Enron and Bennie Maddoff and ADM and Bank of America and Wall Street that needs the "Nanny".

[TheChamp]

Keeping it small and at bay assures one thing and one thing only, it will be powerless to protect you from what it is there to protect you from.

I don't suspect you could justify that. That is an unprovable and absurd hypothesis based on no evidence whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is true, that small governments have proven efficient.

Yes, government is a necessary evil. But the reason it is necessary is that the individual needs the power of the collective voice of all individuals.

Untrue as well, again, without just stating more hypotheticals, justify your thinking, because it is counter-intuitive. Most human being are very capable of surviving on their own, in small groups, and with complete autonomy and they have been for centuries. What has changed? Why would that universal truth no long be valid? Can you justify yourself?

A weak government introduces the evil to no purpose. We risk the bad officers so that someone is empowered to say, "No, you can't shoot your neighbor without fear of consequence." We risk the corrupt politicians so that someone is empowered to say, "No, you can't dump toxic waste in the public water source without fear of consequence."

Also, AGAIN, completely untrue. Politicians rezone land to allow for pollution. Police shoot your neighbors, themselves, without fear of consequences (they just have to invent a story of probable cause and hint that the person may have had something which looked like a gun and they can justify and DO justify murder). Those rolls were never designed to function as you stated. Justify yourself, AGAIN, with facts, with information beyond your counter-intuitive theories.

If the power you grant those charged with protecting you against the more powerful is "small and weak", you have accomplished nothing. If you must call it a "Nanny State", remember this at least, it ain't the average man or woman who needs the "Nanny", it is Exxon/Mobile and Enron and Bennie Maddoff and ADM and Bank of America and Wall Street that needs the "Nanny".

Yes, which is why Exxon Mobile owns politicians and you don't. IF you think the government is somehow empowered to get this people you're a fool beyond redemption, that is absurd, these people ARE THE GOVERNMENT. That's it, period, the rich and power ALWAYS CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT. At least if the government is small, it doesn't allow for tyranny.

So this was it? Some long speech about how you LOVE politicians and beg for them to save you from yourself? I'm repulsed! Disgusted! You're so naive that you think Government will stop the Exxons and Enrons? In the case of Enron, it was created by the government. Most major corporations enjoy a special relationship with big government you and I never will, they buy politicians, author laws, campaign, propagandize, misinform, disinform. Do I do any of this? No. I have no means to do any of it. Yet you beg for a Nanny state?


The Nanny State is and will always be run by the richest wealthiest and most powerful people, the scope of which is only limited by the size of government itself. Exxon will write your Nanny State laws. CEOs will execute them.

[lsbskins1]

I don't suspect you could justify that. That is an unprovable and absurd hypothesis based on no evidence whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is true, that small governments have proven efficient.

Untrue as well, again, without just stating more hypotheticals, justify your thinking, because it is counter-intuitive. Most human being are very capable of surviving on their own, in small groups, and with complete autonomy and they have been for centuries. What has changed? Why would that universal truth no long be valid? Can you justify yourself?


Also, AGAIN, completely untrue. Politicians rezone land to allow for pollution. Police shoot your neighbors, themselves, without fear of consequences (they just have to invent a story of probable cause and hint that the person may have had something which looked like a gun and they can justify and DO justify murder). Those rolls were never designed to function as you stated. Justify yourself, AGAIN, with facts, with information beyond your counter-intuitive theories.

Yes, which is why Exxon Mobile owns politicians and you don't. IF you think the government is somehow empowered to get this people you're a fool beyond redemption, that is absurd, these people ARE THE GOVERNMENT. That's it, period, the rich and power ALWAYS CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT. At least if the government is small, it doesn't allow for tyranny.

So this was it? Some long speech about how you LOVE politicians and beg for them to save you from yourself? I'm repulsed! Disgusted! You're so naive that you think Government will stop the Exxons and Enrons? In the case of Enron, it was created by the government. Most major corporations enjoy a special relationship with big government you and I never will, they buy politicians, author laws, campaign, propagandize, misinform, disinform. Do I do any of this? No. I have no means to do any of it. Yet you beg for a Nanny state?


The Nanny State is and will always be run by the richest wealthiest and most powerful people, the scope of which is only limited by the size of government itself. Exxon will write your Nanny State laws. CEOs will execute them.

This is all only the case as long as fools like you convince people that the state is the enemy rather than their own arm of enforcement. Disengaged citizens who think they have no power vote in low numbers. Low levels of engaged citizens feed the problem. Fools who rant for low levels of government regulation and limited enforcement power turn over the field of power to Exxon and Enron and Bernie Maddoff. Sure, with no mass of concerned, engaged citizens to demand the government act on their behalf, the Big Guys will move into that power vacuum. Unless and until the American voter quits falling for the lie and realizes that they control who takes the seat in Congress with their damn votes and they have the power to put in or take out of office who they choose despite who gets more money from Exxon or anyone else, it will not change.

And if you think history supports your contention that smaller, independent, limited scope political states fare better...look at Ancient Greece. Sparta is at Athens' throat, Athens is at Sparta's throat. Everybody searching for some other ally to join forces with. Constant changes in power and status, constant upheaval. Look at Italy and Germany. They did not become important and stable players on the world stage until they abandoned the idea of small, independent Principalities and turned to centralized, national power. Small is inherently weak and unstable. Look at Poland, who has a national history of mistrust of central government power and has had more armies cross it's borders and more nations redrawing it's borders than you can imagine. There is a reason Europe is pulled towards collectivizing under the EU. Small is inherently weak and unstable. History is not on your side of the argument.

And the police are not free to shoot anyone they please. If they were, it would not be on the national news when it happens. Nobody would know, beyond the people who saw it happen and the families of the victims. There would be no such thing as "excessive force" laws. Just like for everyone else, there is a process. Policemen are not considered above the law by code. What you imply simply does not exist.

[soothsayer]

And the police are not free to shoot anyone they please. If they were, it would not be on the national news when it happens. Nobody would know, beyond the people who saw it happen and the families of the victims. There would be no such thing as "excessive force" laws. Just like for everyone else, there is a process. Policemen are not considered above the law by code. What you imply simply does not exist.

China executes more than rest of world combined - The Irish Times - Wed, Mar 31, 2010

“These people were shot, hanged, beheaded, poisoned, electrocuted and stoned to death,” said Mr O’Gorman. “
Many of them were executed after grossly unfair trials or as a way to silence political opponents.
You are still far more likely to be executed if you are poor or from an ethnic, religious or racial minority.

( The Obama Regime is embracing more and more of what characterizes the Chinese government----who is to say it will stop ? )