Posts for March, 2013
I have been on a self-imposed sabbatical, for reasons that are not clear even to me. Consequently I have not written any posts for some time now. However, a recent newspaper article so incensed me that i could not remain quiet.
The article described a situation involving a young girl, age 3, the daughter of an unmarried woman. This woman, one of 25 children by 15 different men, had a long history of physically abusing her other children, who had consequently been removed from her control and placed in foster care. Then, about three years ago she gave birth to another child, a girl whom she immediately abused with injury. This infant child was also removed from her and placed in a foster home.
Time passed, about three years, as the child grew up in the foster home, apparently in a loving, nurturing environment. However, nothing was done to terminate the mother's parental rights. The foster family experessed a desire to adopt the girl but was unable to because the mother still retained parental rights. By policy, the girl could not remain with her long-term foster family apparently because of concern for bonding, which was a bit late in this case. The Milwaukee child welfare agency then returned the child to the biological mother, who had received counseling. The mother, who appparently is suffering from mental problems, then immediately abused the child again.
The issue ended up in court before a Judge Foley, apparently a good man. Because action had not been taken to terminate parental rights by the agency, adoption by the original foster family, the only family the child has known, was not possible. The child could not be returned to the control of the mother because of the history of abuse. Therefore, the judge's only recourse was to place the child back in the foster care system. Judge Foley was publically incensed at this record of incompetence. This poor child's future is now one of multiple foster care environments with, believe it or not, supervised visitation with this obbviously incompetent biological mother. Talk about a bleak future.
Milwaukee has the unenviable reputation of possessing one of the worst records of returning children to biological mothers that resulted in further abuse. This is a classic example of the destruction of young innocent lives at the hands of an incompetent bureaucracy. I can only speculate on the reasons for this incompetence. Lack of concern is certainly a possibility, but a misguided racial element may also be involved. There apparently is a philosophy in the black community that states that black children should be raised only by black parents. I do not know if this was a factor in this case. I don't even know the race of the original foster family, although many are white. I sincerely hope that race was not a factor in the mishandling of this case, which resulted in ripping this child from a loving foster family wishing to adopt her and throwing her to the bureaucratic wolves. Had adoption occurred, this child's future would have been brightly optimistic instead of the present portent of dark disaster.
I don't have a solution, except that this bureaucratic morass should reorient itself to the welfare of the innocent child above and beyond any biological considerations, race-tinged or otherwise. I would hope that this case would result in legislative or at least administrative remediation, but, sadly, I doubt it.
This first rule: Protect the bureaucracy.
My atttention to this blog has been erratic of late, to say the least. Particularly with respect to the post on gun control, I have not serviced the comments with the attention they deserved. The reason is complex, but relates to the physical and emotional stresses of my caregiver role. At times I get quite tired and have no ambition to write, even though my head is still filled with ideas. There is a period in the day of two or three hours in the afternoon when Joan is down for her nap that I could come up to the computer room and sit down and write. But in fact I just plunk down in my easy chair and let the daily newspaper put me to sleep. I don't get enough sleep in a typical day.
So, don' t lose faith, my friends. I value your kind attention to my work in reading and commenting. I appreciate each and every comment, even those somewhat lacking in erudition or courtesy. I am feeling better and may now be able to again entertain you with my scribbling. At least I hope.
Pierre, I particularly regret not, as you put it, engaging in a give and take of ideas. With respect to the gun control issue, let me try to explain my position. Your argument is that if new restrictions save at least one life, it's worth it. No, it isn't. We are dealing with a constitutional issue, the 2nd Amendment. It clearly intends to protect the possession of arms by the citizenry. The reference to militia is in recognition of the fact that, even up to the Civil War, there was no national standing army or navy. War was simple in those days. You got a gun and, with your neighbors, shot at the enemy. (I know this is an oversimplification, but the principle is valid.) He shot back and whoever shot the best won the day. Thus, it was essential that the able-bodied citizenry had arms behind the door, ready to be taken up in defense of our fledgling nation.
Times have indeed changed. We have standing military that fights our wars. Citizen militias are an anachronism. But, it is in the Constitution, however irrelevent that part of the 2nd Amendment may be today. We tweak the Constitution to suit our present-day needs at our peril. It could very well lead to decimating the entire document, leaving us with a hollow document providing no protection of our rights against the predations of government "fixers". I think no one wants that.
There is a mechanism for changing the Constitution by amendment. It is somewhat tortuous and lengthy, deliberately so as to prevent knee-jerk modifications in response to an emotional issue. (Sound familiar?) If, however, the majority of states, 2/3rds to be exact, agree to a change, it can be done and not infrequently has been in the past. Simply put, if you don't like the constitutional citizen arms provision, then change it.
Oh, that will never happen, you say? Well then, I guess we'll have to live with it. Or maybe not. As a specific example, say Congress passes a so-called assault weapons ban, sometimes referred to as a ban on black-painted rifles. The problem is there are probably millions of black rifles already out there, so banning new sales will be largely ineffective. Then we have another tragic incident. The next step would logically be to confiscate the millions of assault weapons in private hands. Then there's an incident with Glock 17's, so we ban large-capacity magazines, leaving only Glock 10's. The same scenario repeats and existing private Glock 17's are confiscated. Need I go on? That is really the danger the NRA fears: gun confiscation. So do I.
I agree that the 2nd Amendment is somewhat outdated. But I fear that attempts to circumvent it with legislation could lead to a very undesirable paradigm. That is, working around constitutional provisions to suit immediate societal concerns. A slippery slope, indeed.
- It's Hemmer Time My Gun
- Cook's Corner Some recipes just scream summer: No bake raspberry lemon bars
- The Engineering Perspective Venezuela: the liberal utopia
- Fair E-tales Until next time
- "Hear's" to Life! October Conference for Hearing Loss!
- GarberPark 33rd Topic - Pick a Vector
- Eagle's Eye The Dogs of War-Scott Walker
- Oconomowoc Community 30x30 Nature Challenge Addie’s Guardian Angel
- Giving pet owners the power of information What every pet owner should know… giving pet owners the power of information
- Community Splashes June 7th Adaptive Water Ski Day for Waukesha County on Pewaukee Lake