« This is What I'm Up Against II | Main | Quote Of The Day - Sticks And Stones Edition »

I, too, believe the children are the future...

...and ought to be kept out of political activism until they're adults.

I'm still maintaining my boycott on the actual Terri Schiavo case, but I want to express my disgust for those people bringing in their children to help them protest the case. I am especially appalled at those who let their children get arrested to help them "make their point." Note here a 10-year-old in handcuffs.

This has disgusted me for years. I recall back in the early 90's when Operation Rescue put on one of their summers of protest, where they brought along the kids. ("Hey, it's fun for the whole family!") Those kids were sent charging the police barricades (often through busy traffic) to try to shut down abortion clinics. And over on Little Green Footballs, Charles has a standing headline called "Palestinian Child Abuse" where he shows Palestinian children carrying guns, dressed up as suicide bombers, and the like.

Children have absolutely NO place as political pawns, regardless of the position. There is no political stance whose moral standing is boosted by the exploitation (and, often, the endangerment) of children. I'd like to see every single parent who exploits their children this way investigated by authorities, and perhaps even have their children taken away.

J.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I, too, believe the children are the future...:

» Broken Masterpieces linked with Thoughts on the Schiavo Case

Comments (88)

To involve your children th... (Below threshold)
rick:

To involve your children this way and possibly endanger them is beyond shameful. The authorities should investigate all instances of children being used in protests that lead to endangerment or arrest. It is one thing to bring your kid to a political rally, its another to allow them to attempt to break the law in your stead.

I was just saying the same ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I was just saying the same thing to my husband this morning.

It is one thing to take a stand and fully understand what it is you are doing, but to drag your kids along, is just stupid (but then I am one of those people who thinks standing around holding signs and making meaningless gesures like the water cup people don't really do much to change anything, they just make you look like a fruitcake).

"I recall back in the early 90's when Operation Rescue put on one of their summers of protest, where they brought along the kids. ("Hey, it's fun for the whole family!") "

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that Randall Terry is involved with the Schindlers as some kind of family representative, so it isn't any surprise that this would remind you of those tactics.

I confess I am pro life, and not in favor of Terri having her tube pulled out, but the nutburgers hanging outside the hospice chanting etc is a bit much for me (granted Michael has nutburgers on his side out there chanting too).

I agree completely with all... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

I agree completely with all 3 of you. The parents are bad parents who do not love the kids. Disgusting!

Considering the history of ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Considering the history of the Florida Department of Children and Families, it's really surprising that there haven't been people there to remove the kids from the custody of the parents involved.

Seriously.

The DCF has a very bad habit of ignoring the hell out of the wrong things, then coming in and acting like complete bureaucratic morons when the cameras get in the area to show how much work they're doing "for the good of the children."

I too am disgusted with the... (Below threshold)
ds:

I too am disgusted with the use of children. I much preferred the way the leftys made use of their children in the 60s and 70s protesting the Vietnam war. The cute scenes of children die-ins to protest RR was also a nice touch, don't you think.

Maybe if the poor woman was a Harp Seal, yep that would do it, we would have chants and humming to the stars to bring out the power. Everyone would chime in -- save the seal.

BTW did you see the story about the guy being jailed for starving a few cows? Good thing, don't you think? Oh, yeah, the quotes from the story said the cows suffered gravely. No euphoria for the cows I guess.

But more than anything, I am disgusted at the utter cruelity on display by government. That might be the lasting legacy of this whole sorid affair.

Let me get this straight. T... (Below threshold)
anon-o-mouse:

Let me get this straight. The same state which is systematically starving an invalid to death should also have the authority to take away children from their parents if they join in the protest of this barbarism? Your adolecent preoccupation with sex and silly games is bad enough, but to equate this in any way with what the Palestinians do to their kids is pathetic and intentionally misleading!

Anon-o-mouse, kindly click ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Anon-o-mouse, kindly click on the link in my postings and tell me the differences. To my eyes, both cases are of parents putting their children in situations where it is quite possible they will get hurt or killed in the interests of the parents' political beliefs.

As far as it being in Florida -- I don't care what state they're in. Any parent that encourages, or even tolerates, their 10-year-old to do something that will get them arrested OUGHT to be locked up themselves, and OUGHT to have their kids taken away.

Now, if you'd made a comment about how the kids are probably safer in the custody of Florida's legal system rather than their foster care system, I might have had to concede your point...

J.

I don't know I think on one... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I don't know I think on one level they are very similar.

What they are promoting/seeking to protect isn't similar, but parents using their children for political purposes certainly is similar.

anon-o-mouse:Yep.<... (Below threshold)
cirby:

anon-o-mouse:

Yep.

Take the kids away from the idiots.

Anyone who is really concerned about "life" wouldn't be bringing their way-too-young kids to this sort of thing, much less be encouraging them to take actions that could get them hurt or killed. Sending Little Johnny out into the middle of an unhappy crowd is just plain idiotic, and the parents of such kids should have some severe repercussions, like losing custody of the kids. If they care more about making political points more than they do about keeping the kids out of harm's way, they're crappy parents.

...and *no*, the kids aren't "taking part in the protests" when they're that age. They haven't got any more sense of what's going on than any kids that age, and considering the sort of parents they've got, probably a lot less.

I alos happen to feel the same way about the fools and morons who did this sort of thing during the ANSWER protests last year. It's not a left/right thing, it's a stupid/not stupid thing.


Would you care to weigh in ... (Below threshold)

Would you care to weigh in on Austin?

http://believeinmagic91.blogspot.com/

Doesn't his blog constitute political activism?

Should he be nixed?

"...and *no*, the kids aren... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"...and *no*, the kids aren't "taking part in the protests" when they're that age. They haven't got any more sense of what's going on than any kids that age, and considering the sort of parents they've got, probably a lot less."

Some of the kids involved are 10ish. I have 10 and 11 year old daughters, and they have discussed this issue some (it is very hard to not hear about it, with it being all over the news and papers). They grasp some of the facts, but they are still to young to fully compehend all that is involved, and certainly the risks involved by going to a protest.

Honestly, even if my teenager (when they get that old) felt strongly about something, I probably wouldn't let them go to a protest, simply because of the risks involved.

So I don't think you can say kids don't have any sense of what is going on, but you can say they don't fully understand all the nuances of what is happening.

"So I don't think you can s... (Below threshold)
cirby:

"So I don't think you can say kids don't have any sense of what is going on,"

...so it's very fortunate that I didn't.

""They haven't got any more sense of what's going on than any kids that age,""

...was what I _did_ say.

Jeff I don't have issues wi... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Jeff I don't have issues with kids taking positions, I have issues with parents dragging their kids to various protests, where things may be dangerous or they are going to get arrested.

Like I said we have discussed this issue to some degree with my daughters (my boys are too young and would rather watch the INcredibles than ask about these things at the moment), and they have both formed opinions, but I wouldn't drag them off or encourage them to head down to Florida to get arrested either.

But then as I said earlier, I am not a fan of standing around holding signs and making meaningless gestures. If my dd's wanted to do something, I would instead encourage them to write members of the Florida legislature with their opinion. Or maybe write a letter to the editor, but I draw the line and hauling my child into a large crowd with some volatile people on both sides, and risk arrest.

Agree, these kids should be... (Below threshold)
shark:

Agree, these kids should be taken away. And every step of the way, when these kids want to know why the policeman is arresting them etc, they should be repeatedly told that it's mommy and daddys fault this is happening.

Actually, a 10 year old sho... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Actually, a 10 year old should have no trouble whatsoever understanding what is going on. It's the pro-death folks that would LIKE you to believe it's more complicated than that. Having said that I agree that these protests are not an appropriate venue for children.

But I do NOT agree that thi... (Below threshold)
mcg:

But I do NOT agree that this constitutes an offense worthy of dragging the kids away from the parents. In fact I think that it's rather silly to suggest it. You are welcome to disagree about the appropriateness of it but these children are not in any physical danger.

And as for introducing them to situations they can't understand properly---you'd better be VERY careful before you go down that road, because it's not far from suggesting that people can't take their kids to church.

What is more, I frankly can't believe that anyone who is witnessing the government completely fail Terri Schiavo would actually argue that the government can actually be an effective corrective force in these kids' lives.

(Just to be clear, when I s... (Below threshold)
mcg:

(Just to be clear, when I say the kids are not in danger, I'm certainly not talking about the Palestinian example---just the cases here.)

mcg, if that comment of you... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

mcg, if that comment of yours was directed to me, cram it. I've said repeatedly that I will not take a stand on the Schiavo case, and I remain resolute on that. However, that does not preclude me from calling assholes who put their children into harm's way for their cause assholes.

I was tempted to also cite all the kids who show up at anti-war rallies, but those tend to be less dangerous than the Schiavo rallies and the Operation Rescue charges. My point is this: regardless of the position of the parents, those children should NOT be there. Period.

Now go find some other thread to fight about the Schiavo case, mcg. This one ain't for that.

J.

Jay Tea,I am sorry... (Below threshold)
anon-o-mouse:

Jay Tea,

I am sorry, but I found no link w/your above posting. I acknowlege that if a parent put their child in a dangerous situation to further their own political goals that would be negligent, but that is not the case in Florida where the vast majority of the protesters are merely praying and the opposition has been ostensibly non-violent.
I find it ironic that at this website (that I read daily), one of the most common complaints is state's interference in people's lives. Yet at the 1st suggestion that the state take kids away from their pro-life parents there is a
is a big amen. Do you realize the implications of this?
In the volatile months before the election, kids were in far more danger attending pro-Bush rallies and the support-our-troops rallies, than this prayer vigil, yet, to their credit they attended by the hundreds of thousands. Not only did they learn something, but as far as I know, no one was hurt.

These parents in Florida ought hear about the potential risks that they may be exposing their kids to, but to advocate removing the kids from their parents is more akin to Janet Reno's mentality.

However, that does not p... (Below threshold)
mcg:

However, that does not preclude me from calling assholes who put their children into harm's way for their cause assholes.

Fine, tell me how that 10 year old kid who was arrested this morning was harmed. And be specific.

And you can call them assho... (Below threshold)
mcg:

And you can call them assholes all you want, but it's a different thing altogether to suggest that their children be taken away from them by the government.

Mcg, dude... Parent encoura... (Below threshold)
Spex:

Mcg, dude... Parent encourages child to go sell crack, rob a bank, set fire to a neighbor's house, that's called contributing to delinquency. Encourage a kid to trespass (and that's what it is, trying to storm the hospice doors to deliver water, like they're going to LET you) and get arrested is milder perhaps, but it's still encouraging a child to ignore the law. That's harm. I'm with Jay Tea on this.

Comparing it to the Palesti... (Below threshold)

Comparing it to the Palestinian situation is a little much. Actually, a lot much.

We're talking about these kids trying to deliver water to Terri, not blow themselves up.

I know I am in the minority here and elsewhere (my mind is admittedly clouded by personal family parallels in the Schiavo case), but I applaud those kids. The kids were never in any danger. They were not doing anything outrageous.

Suggesting they should be taken away from their parents is also way too much.

I agree in general that parents should not exploit their kids for political causes, knowing the kids will get off scott-free, but I would just bet these specific kids felt they were doing the right thing, not at the command of their parents, but for themselves.

Four.... (Below threshold)
julie:

Four.

It's so interesting that yo... (Below threshold)
Cao:

It's so interesting that you would say that. Considering how in Nazi Germany the Hitler Youth were encouraged to turn in their parents. Now there's an example of how the law changed and everyone was supposed to lock step with it and if you didn't, you got arrested. Yes, now the ruling of a probate Judge has usurped that of Congressional subpoenas, DFS, which has the same authority as law enforcement, and pro novo review (which was ignored).

If King Greer had ordered Terri be shot at her husband’s request –(which would be more humane) – the whole country (excuse me but you included) would not be sitting idly by, as they are now, claiming to be bound by the court’s ruling because of the “rule of law” and “federalism.” President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police!!!

Ann Coulter said this week "What was supposed to be the “least dangerous” branch has become the most dangerous – literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can’t be stopped – solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God."

I have to agree. "…President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: “Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” The court’s ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived."

And it would survive if something was done in this case to save Terri's life, I think people would have a lot more respect for some of our officials if they'd stop bending over for the Greer Reaper.

And I'm sorry to say this but you're sounding exactly like the MSM on this.

Fine, tell me how that 1... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Fine, tell me how that 10 year old kid who was arrested this morning was harmed. And be specific.

They were being taught, by their parents, to break the law without understanding either the situation or the law they were breaking. At the very least, it's contributing to the delinquency of a minor - as noted before. At the worst, it's putting a child directly in harm's way, since the protests are not completely nonviolent (we're getting some reports on this around here that the rest of the country is not - a guy tried to steal a gun to "rescue Terri, for example).

It was claimed above that a ten year old understands the Schiavo situation, while it's pretty damned obvious that almost no adults understand the situation, from the comments made by all sides. Too many of the people on both sides are quoting science by what their faith tells them and law by "I wanna."

Well writ Coa. They ... (Below threshold)
anon-o-mouse:

Well writ Coa.
They do sound like the MSM on this one.
If the judge ordered a dog starved to death -- something a even a child could understand is reprehensible, imagine the outcry by the right, left and center. The bottom line is that irrespective of what position one holds on euthenasia, there is a sadistic pleasure that the public takes in supporting the courts decision. It is almost like a public stoning. There is nothing nobel in being neutral on this matter and the feigned objectivity displayed by Mr. Tea and Mr. Johnson in this matter is extremely discouraging. Especially because they are both so smart.
Name one person in the world who would consent to being denied food and water till they die. No one is neutral on the subject.

I have nothing against anyo... (Below threshold)
julie:

I have nothing against anyone practicing peaceful civil disobedience so long as there is no property damage and it is for a legitimate political cause, as opposed to looking all moonbatty cool for your friends

The boy is in no danger unless you think the police are something to be afraid of, which they aren't. They are not going to prosecute the kid and his parents did not put him in any danger.

And unless he has a few pounds of plastique stuffed in his pockets, I see no comparison to the Palestinian Child Abuse.

I love how people are deman... (Below threshold)
julie:

I love how people are demanding that the parents be punished for bringing the kid to a demonstration. If all it took were “an angry crowd' to be charged with child endangerment, then every parent who brings his kid to some sort of play off game should be arrested because riots are de rigeur these days. Angry people? Some kids live in neighborhoods filled with angry, dangerous people. Shd we take kids away from the poor? As far as encouraging him to break the law, that it falls under civil disobedience and considering the surrounding circumstances, good luck selling it to a jury, assuming you can even get pass a demurrer.

The boy is in no danger ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The boy is in no danger unless you think the police are something to be afraid of, which they aren't.

You must be talking about some other protest than the Schiavo situation, then, because there have been a lot of threats of violence, and the police arrested a guy who stole a firearm from a gun shop in order to "rescue" her. Someone also offered a quarter million dollar bounty for the death of Mr. Schiavo, and $50 thou for the death of the judge.

The majority of people there are peaceful sure, but in this case, there's more than a trivial threat of violence. Once you have people sending in kids to be arrested by the cops, you start getting into the "smack the parents in the head" range. If the parents want to protest, let them. If they want to commit civil disobedience, fine and dandy, let them go to jail.

But sending in your kids to get arrested as your proxy? That's abuse, plain and simple.

julie:We're not wa... (Below threshold)
cirby:

julie:

We're not wanting them to be arrested for "bringing them to a demonstration." We're saying we think they should be punished because they told the kids to commit a crime in place of the parents, which got the kids arrested. Even with the nicest cops in the world, there are too many variables to pretend that this is anything like a safe situation.

After a thoroughly icky str... (Below threshold)
-S-:

After a thoroughly icky stream of nonsense in emails from one of those examples you mention in your story, Jay Tea, I've concluded that anyone can write anything about anyone and some people will always accept it as fact, just because.

Most people don't include their children in activities that pose possible harms to their children (or anyone else's children). To categorize people, for whatever reason, of whatever kind or affiliation, as doing so based upon a handful of behaviors by some people, is to be, well, among the handful and not the majority.

I am thinking of late that Wizbang is engaged in bating threads. Some *other* websites do likewise and although it attracts traffic and comments, I'm left today wondering if that's a good thing because again I write, sometimes popularity only indicates accessibility, it does not mean quality or worth.

Just saying.

However, I suppose you could suggest that people who allow their children to compete in sports of a certain level (cycling, motocross, skateboarding, swimming even among others) could be allowing their children to engage in potentially harmful environments.

MOST people supervise and attend and most often prevent children from exposure to problematic conditions. MOST people, even other nationalities, other religions, even, I think it's fair to suggest, atheists do.

And, the arrest process for... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, the arrest process for those protesting Terri Schiavo's approaching death has been peaceful. Those protesting are not in any arena where violence and other dangers are evident and I don't see any problem with ten year olds participating if that's what their parents assume responsibility for. It's an entirely and hugely different environment than, say, areas where people can be expected to be committing suicide and lauching deadly weapons at others.

I wouldn't allow a child of mine in the Terri Schiavo environment, however peacefully conducted, but some people have and that's their thing, not mine, not yours. Not like the children are in any danger -- as I wrote previously -- while motocross for eight, nine and ten year olds is far more potentially threatening than participating in a peaceful protest process of the Terri Schiavo supporters.

At this point, any parent a... (Below threshold)
-S-:

At this point, any parent allowing their child to read the L.A.Times, by your suggestion, should be charged with child abuse. About which, actually, I agree while we're making these unsupportable and certainly irreverant statements about negative stereotypes of 'parents' and "child abuse".

Jay Tea - Children have ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Jay Tea - Children have absolutely NO place as political pawns, regardless of the position. There is no political stance whose moral standing is boosted by the exploitation (and, often, the endangerment) of children. I'd like to see every single parent who exploits their children this way investigated by authorities, and perhaps even have their children taken away.

I'm almost with you on this. I share your disgust with parents who would exploit their children to fulfill their own desires and whose motives are suspect. They should be ashamed of themselves for dragging into the fray immature minds not yet able to comprehend the social circumstance into which they have been thrown. No matter how intellectually smart they might be, though I seriously doubt they have such analytical skills, they will not have the emotional skills or life experience to grasp either the big picture or subtle nuance of what tranpires.

Parents have that innate right to guide and educate their kids into their mold and should not be wholly chastised for introducing their worldview. Parents do this every day all day long and the nanny state is incapable of engaging with such due diligence. Having conceded this point, I still find it deplorable, like you, that such guidance be driven by what seems to be selfish action without deference to the child's "right" to not be railroaded into situations for which they are unprepared. I have no confidence that these parents have their kid's best interest at heart. Parents should be more cognisant of the significance of such exhibitionist events and restrain their action based on potentially misguided passion.

As a practical consideration of its impact, consider the "arrest" of these fragile children and their malleable minds. They will meet pubescent life with a state record of disobedience. Maybe some think that such civil disobedience is good. I submit the kids should be able to engage in civil disobedience when they are old enough to vote - seems like a rational cutoff to me despite its inexactitude. What happens with this record as they progress through life? Will they be unfairly marked or discriminiated against by others who would not look fondly upon their action? Is that a scarlet letter we should stitch to their chest? Does anyone really think that family or peer pressure did not force these kids to act at the whim of their authority figures? Isn't it more likely that they seek approval from those supposedly more responsible and got caught up in a moment that they may regret or that may haunt them for some time?

This shameful behavior deserves all the scorn doled out by so many posters her, but to remove them from their parents and relegate them to state care is too far. Neither do I believe placing them in another family member's embrace is appropriate though the thought is tempting. I'd just hope that these parents see the error in their ways at some point and debrief their children at an appropriate time. A simple "sorry" may suffice.

Jay,I couldn't agree... (Below threshold)

Jay,
I couldn't agree more. The use of kids in the protest is disgusting; while I don't think the kids should be taken away from the parents, the parents should be locked up for awhie. I very much agree with the comparison with Operation Rescue; I should know since I was one of the kids (actually a teenager). I actually wrote this article about the experience on my blog a few weeks ago. I am likewise disturbed by the presence of someone like Randall Terry in this protest.

While I haven't completely decided what I think on the Schiavo issue, the presence of many of the protesters is unfortunately clouding the issue for me.

It's an entirely and hug... (Below threshold)
cirby:

It's an entirely and hugely different environment than, say, areas where people can be expected to be committing suicide and lauching deadly weapons at others.

As events have shown over the last couple of days, this is 100% false. There have been attempts to foment violence, and the presence of Randall Terry voids the whole concept of a "safe" and/or "peaceful" protest.


Mcg, dude... Parent enco... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Mcg, dude... Parent encourages child to go sell crack, rob a bank, set fire to a neighbor's house, that's called contributing to delinquency.

Agreed. This is nothing of the sort.

Encourage a kid to trespass (and that's what it is, trying to storm the hospice doors to deliver water, like they're going to LET you) and get arrested is milder perhaps, but it's still encouraging a child to ignore the law. That's harm. I'm with Jay Tea on this.

Hardly. First of all, he didn't "storm" anything, that's a loaded term and you know it. This was completely nonviolent protest of a perceived injustice on the part of the government. Secondly, when the child was arrested he, undoubtedly under his parent's specific instruction, cooperated fully and calmly. This isn't even close to the physically dangerous practices Jay Tea cited as his other examples.

Secondly, are you suggesting that we teach a kid to respect the law under ALL circumstances? That we don't lift a finger of dissent under ANY circumstance? I'm sorry but that's not my idea of "respect for the law." What you DO teach your child is to understand that government does have authority, and that if you are motivated by perceived injustice to civil disobedience you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences.

They were being taught, ... (Below threshold)
mcg:

They were being taught, by their parents, to break the law without understanding either the situation or the law they were breaking.

You have no way of knowing what it is that kid did or did not understand. Refer to my last post for the rest of my response.

.At the worst, it's putting a child directly in harm's way, since the protests are not completely nonviolent (we're getting some reports on this around here that the rest of the country is not - a guy tried to steal a gun to "rescue Terri, for example).

Life is not totally nonviolent. Besides, you seem to be suggesting that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, and that's ludicrous. This child was involved in a nonviolent protest. That there was violence or threats thereof in other parts of the state or country is irrelevant. If violence broke out at that protest and the parents saw fit to let their children stay involved, then we might have something here.

It was claimed above tha... (Below threshold)
mcg:

It was claimed above that a ten year old understands the Schiavo situation, while it's pretty damned obvious that almost no adults understand the situation, from the comments made by all sides.

That's because people want to make it more complicated than it is. IMO it's quite easy for a 10-year old to understand this situation. Then again that assumes a political position that Jay Tea would prefer we not get into here, so let me stop there. But I must make that very particular point nonetheless, because frankly the "it's a complex issue" defense can be used in all sorts of situations. For someone who believes life beings at conception, all of the arguments about the quality of life for the child, the quality of life for the mother, it's her body, etc. etc. are moot and irrelevant because it's still murder. For them, the issue is simple, and it's the pro-choicers that try to make it complicated when it's not.

You must be talking abou... (Below threshold)
mcg:

You must be talking about some other protest than the Schiavo situation, then, because there have been a lot of threats of violence, and the police arrested a guy who stole a firearm from a gun shop in order to "rescue" her. Someone also offered a quarter million dollar bounty for the death of Mr. Schiavo, and $50 thou for the death of the judge.

Completely different situations in completely different places, and totally irrelevant therefore to the situation that the 10-year-old found himself in.

Let me just expand on this ... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Let me just expand on this last point of mine. There were quite a few violent and/or vulgar political demonstrations during the last election that would have been entirely inappropriate venues for children. Some of you seem to be suggesting that parents shouldn't therefore not have been allowed to let their children actively participate in any political assembly because of some bad examples.

Well, hogwash.

Ok, sorry, three posts up I... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Ok, sorry, three posts up I failed to make it clear that I was using abortion as an example of an issue which is "complex" to some and "simple" to others. I hope you were all smart enough to figure out what I so poorly said.

Completely different sit... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Completely different situations in completely different places, and totally irrelevant therefore to the situation that the 10-year-old found himself in.

Those situations were directly related to this situation, and the guy who tried to steal the gun to "rescue" Terri did it eight miles from her current location.

What in the world could make you think that's "totally irrelevant?"

And, once again, the sheer fact that Randall Terry is involved moves the "low" threat of potential violence into something much more ominous.

eight miles from her cur... (Below threshold)
mcg:

eight miles from her current location.

Well, then that would be eight miles away from the nonviolent protest then. Irrelevant.

I wouldn't involve my child... (Below threshold)
mikem:

I wouldn't involve my children in a protest of any kind, but the many people here who agree with JT that parents should have their children taken away by the state for doing so are just plain nuts. JT dug himself a large hole with his hysterical reaction to parents using their children for publicity value, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to march over the cliff with him.
Think before you shoot.

You must be talking abou... (Below threshold)
julie:

You must be talking about some other protest than the Schiavo situation,

You drinking, cirby? I'm talking about this one.
Some people voiced concern bc the boy was taken into custody by the police. There is nothing to fear with the police. As to the alleged threats of violence etc., see my second post. As to the police arresting the burgler, so? It didn’t happen at the hospice and he was arrested. And as I said in second post, there’s danger lurking everywhere.

And, my opinion is that the people who want to take the kid away from his parents shd be smacked in the head. Abuse has a legal connotation. They are not guilty of abuse. And you’re assuming the boy was forced in some way to do this. If in your mind you think what they did is abusive, fine, but it is in YOUR mind. This is still the US and people have the right to instill their values in their children without your approval.

We're saying we think they should be punished because they told the kids to commit a crime in place of the parents, which got the kids arrested.

Huh? One, you know that pesky little thing called proof? You have none. Second, it doesn’t fall under the definition of child endangerment nor that of contributing. No prosecutor in his right mind wd file, it couldn't get pass a demurrer, and no jury would convict.

Even with the nicest cops in the world, there are too many variables to pretend that this is anything like a safe situation.

I disagree. I feel perfectly safe around police. If you are referring to the other things you mentioned, then you just better hide in your bed bc there is danger everywhere if you are the type that looks for it. Because you disagree with the parents does not make it a criminal case or give you or any one else the legal right to take their kids away.

You want to talk about viol... (Below threshold)
julie:

You want to talk about violence? You want to talk scary? I heard the same arguments during the civil rights movement. I don’t know of anyone who regrets marching, having their children march with them, or getting arrested.

Agreed. I suppose that to h... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Agreed. I suppose that to hear people like Jay Tea and cirby talk, we should be careful before we teach our children about Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and other noble, nonviolent civil rights dissenters (MLK's shoddy personal life notwithstanding)---at least until they're old enough to drink.

I think you should get over... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

I think you should get over it concerned Terri Shiavo. Want to know what it's really like for her?
Write me and I'll tell you. besides my opinion has been splattered all over this website. Maybe if you read them you'd have a better understanding of the sitution.

Cindy

And I think you should get ... (Below threshold)
julie:

And I think you should get over your concern with our concern with Terri Schiavo.

Well, look, there were plen... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Well, look, there were plenty of people at the time who thought Rosa Parks and MLK were on the wrong side of the issue then, too. We now have the hindsight to know that they were on the right side of the issue. But even if they had not been, I think we could agree that their methods of dissent were respectable.

Likewise, I think we can have that discussion about the Terri Schiavo protests as well. It could very well be that history will vindicate Michael Schiavo, but I hope that we could be intelligent enough to distinguish between the peaceful, well-meaning protests and the violent nutjobs.

Well, then that would be... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Well, then that would be eight miles away from the nonviolent protest then. Irrelevant.

Are you insane?

This is 2005, not 1805.

Eight miles away it EIGHT MINUTES AWAY by a crappy car.

You're crossed the line from "possibly concerned" into "completely stupid."

Agreed. I suppose that t... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Agreed. I suppose that to hear people like Jay Tea and cirby talk, we should be careful before we teach our children about Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and other noble, nonviolent civil rights dissenters (MLK's shoddy personal life notwithstanding)---at least until they're old enough to drink.

Exactly.

You might note that MLK was very careful to make sure that actual *adults* followed him in civil disobedeince, not children foisted on the movement by cowardly parents who didn't have the courage to do it by themselves.

Taking the children away?? ... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Taking the children away?? Now that's a big far, J, but as for the rest of it, I have to agree.

Cindy

mcg, you finally done took ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

mcg, you finally done took enough rope to hang you with.

"Agreed. I suppose that to hear people like Jay Tea and cirby talk, we should be careful before we teach our children about Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and other noble, nonviolent civil rights dissenters (MLK's shoddy personal life notwithstanding)---at least until they're old enough to drink."

Maybe Dr. King should have had his supporters bring their children along with some of their actions, too. Then they could have been exposed to the glories of fire hoses, police dogs, cops with sticks, and the occasional lynching that left bodies buried in earthen dams.

They tried to keep their children safe while fighting for civil rights, but even then it didn't work. Four little black girls (one a friend of a very young Condoleezza Rice) were maliciously and provocatively rehearsing for church choir when the church they were in was blown up around them.

I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the protesters' causes in each case, mcg -- apparently you've missed the 37 times I've tried to spell it out. I am arguing against their bringing their children with them, against their getting their children involved, against their getting their children to commit crimes while protesting, against their getting their children arrest records that will last them until they're 18 -- or even longer.

Often, kids are taken into jails to be "scared straight." They get to see and hear real prisoners, see real jail cells, the whole process. If that's supposed to be intimidating to the average kid, what do you think the REAL arrest process is like to an actual 10-year-old arrestee?

If you DON'T have a problem with parents allowing/enouraging that to happen to make their own points for them, you got bigger problems than I feel like dealing with.

J.

Are you insane?... (Below threshold)
julie:

Are you insane?

No, are you? You’ve elevated a simple trespass or disturbing the peace infraction that will never be filed b/c o fthe kids age to a high crime. You want the kids removed from the home and the parents charged with some yet unspecified crime. Talk about a lack of perspective!

If you are so afraid of the potentially of crime, I suggest you not send your kids to school, because if there was ever a chance that they would get shot or beaten into a coma it’s there. And what about most sports events? There is always violence occurring in the arena, in the parking lot, etc. In fact, don’t let your kid ever get in a car because there are crashes, thousands of them, resulting in fatalities and serious injury. Death is just waiting around the corner for your, cirby.

People always try to shut down the 1rst Amend. by playing the violence card. Historically and legally, it never works.

You might note that MLK ... (Below threshold)
julie:

You might note that MLK was very careful to make sure that actual *adults* followed him in civil disobedeince, not children foisted on the movement by cowardly parents who didn't have the courage to do it by themselves.

You must be talking about some other civil rights era, cirby. I don’t know what MLK specifically said about children (do you?) but I do know they participated in marches, including those led by MLK. The marches themselves were considered acts of civil disobedience.

mcg, you finally done to... (Below threshold)
julie:

mcg, you finally done took enough rope to hang you with.

You left more than enough for yourself and cirby, jay!

Maybe Dr. King should have had his supporters bring their children along with some of their actions, too. Then they could have been exposed to the glories of fire hoses, police dogs, cops with sticks, and the occasional lynching that left bodies buried in earthen dams.

Cough, cough, they did and they were. But, not to any lynchings or murders since they were not voluntary or announced events.

They tried to keep their children safe while fighting for civil rights, but even then it didn't work.

So, they had nothing left to lose, did they?

I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the protesters' causes in each case, mcg -- apparently you've missed the 37 times I've tried to spell it out.

I suspect that you are since you’re arguments are factually unsound. I can excuse your lack of knowledge of the juvenile justice system, but you and others should brush up on your 20th century history.

I am arguing against their bringing their children with them, against their getting their children involved, against their getting their children to commit crimes while protesting,

That’s nice. But again, people have the right to protest. People have the right to install their values in their children. While the parents didn’t stop their child, there is no proof that them "getting their children to commit crimes." Plus, one man's crime is another man's civil disobedience.

against their getting their children arrest records that will last them until they're 18 -- or even longer.

Oh, let me guess. . . Any time the teacher said "Mr. Tea, this could go on your pernament record!" you and you're little clipon tie trembled! I’m not going to go into why your’re wrong here, I don’t have the time, and I’m sure you don’t want to hear how criminal databases are kept or any of the real technical stuff of the juvenile justice system, so just let me say: GET REAL!

Often, kids are taken into jails to be "scared straight." They get to see and hear real prisoners, see real jail cells, the whole process. If that's supposed to be intimidating to the average kid, what do you think the REAL arrest process is like to an actual 10-year-old arrestee?

Wouldn't know, jay. By law they can't take them to jail. In fact, where I live, I'm not sure they could even take the little bugger to a juvenile detention center bc of his age.

If you DON'T have a problem with parents allowing/enouraging that to happen to make their own points for them, you got bigger problems than I feel like dealing with.

Your proof of encouraging is? I have a problem with people elevating this into something it is not and using bogus arguments to support it .

Oh, yeah, this bears repeating: I don’t know of anyone who regrets marching, having their children march with them, or getting arrested. Nor do I know of any kids who marched in that era having any regrets. In fact, they are quite proud of their participation in making this world a better place.

Rent or read Eyes On the Pr... (Below threshold)
julie:

Rent or read Eyes On the Prize.
Birmingham children's marches 1963
Selma to Montgomery march 1965 led by MLK.

Unfortunately, this exhibit is not online. Link
TO BEAR WITNESS is a pictorial essay of one of the most celebrated marches of the Civil Rights era. Organized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., supporters attempted to march from Selma to the Alabama State Capitol on March 7th, 1965. That rally was broken up by police who were televised beating men, women, and children, and dispersing the crowds with water cannons and attack dogs. On March 17, United States District Judge Frank M. Johnson, ordered state and county officials "to permit and protect" the marchers on the fifty mile walk from Selma, Alabama, to the courthouse in Montgomery. The National Guard was called out to preserve the peace and on March 25th the protesters began the march. It was estimated that forty thousand men, women, and children completed the journey.

One last point. If you are going to condemn the family in Florida, you better be prepared to condemn the civil rights movement. Otherwise, you are making a value judgement.

julie,"Are you ins... (Below threshold)
cirby:

julie,

"Are you insane?"

No, are you? You’ve elevated a simple trespass or disturbing the peace infraction that will never be filed b/c o fthe kids age to a high crime.

For some reason, you treat it like it was on another continent or something, when the guy was EIGHT FRIGGING MINUTES AWAY.

Which answers the question. You are insane.

One last point. If you a... (Below threshold)
cirby:

One last point. If you are going to condemn the family in Florida, you better be prepared to condemn the civil rights movement. Otherwise, you are making a value judgement.

Soooo....

When, during the civil rights marches, did the marchers send their young children out in front to provoke a confrontation with the cops?

This is turning into a frea... (Below threshold)
mikem:

This is turning into a freak show. If anyone is a threat to my children, it is people like JT and others here who are ready to snatch my children away from me if I show up at a demonstration with them. Generally it is people who do not have healthy relations with their own children who see child confiscation as a remedy for trivial disagreements like this. A parent or non parent who had a normal loving relationship with children would abhor the very notion of allowing strangers to take custody of a child for showing up at a demonstration, regardless of whether it is at the urging of the parents or not.
Keep your hands off other's children, JT. You have obviously forfeited any right to judge the actions of others.

How about those who brought... (Below threshold)
Amelia:

How about those who brought their PVS relatives for whom they care at home themselves? Guess that would be the same as children and they, too, should not be allowed at a prayer vigil? There are policemen standing guard at all times and in large numbers. For many this is not a political concern at all but religious and you are bordering on saying adults should not be allowed to take their children to church nor to participate in any religious activity that might involve some sort of danger or injury. How about playing football for the church team? Lots of kids actually get hurt doing that but not a single one has been harmed at this so-called dangerous prayer vigil.

But if the disabled were not allowed to attend and the children not allowed to attend, what about the priests? Shouldn't allow religion at a "political" event. So now praying is a political activity? Not to me it isn't and I think you are exposing your own concept of the situation as being political rather than religious. It is my religion that objects to the taking of life in this matter, not my politics. There is nothing to indicate that there is danger at this vigil and even the disabled seem to be doing just fine. I think you are trying to fabricate a situation that just does not exist for your own purposes but in so doing expose your own stance as purely political in regard to the taking of human life. For some of us it is a sacred thing and we are obligated to teach our children that it is wrong to deprive another human of food and water in this matter in all cases.

The arrests are token in case you do not grasp the idea. No real charges are brought and the cops friendly and understanding, unlike you. No, the parents are NOT having the children arrested in their stead but as a way of teaching them to stand up for what is right regardless of the consequences, something you obviously missed as a child. You still do not seem to get it as an adult, either. Perhaps if you had been allowed to attend a few peaceful prayer vigils you would understand better. It is just symbolic in this instance.

It certainly has nothing to do with blowing themselves up nor getting in the line of gunfire as you are suggesting. There is no gunfire nor any likely surrounded by cops as they are.

It's called freedom of speech and every kid I saw interviewed was chomping at the bit to be involved and make their little statements. Good for them, too. And once again, you might need to mind your own business. I see lots of parenting techiniques of which I do not approve but that does not give me the right to make summary and rash judgments when no actual harm has been demonstrated to occur to the child. No harm has come to them and they do seem to have the basic concept of what is happening and why they oppose it. Perhaps if a few more parents taught their children to speak up whether or not it is popular, we might not have such a run-away judiciary in the first place. In any event, it is a decision for the parents to make, not you, and until you have far more definitive evidence of these alleged dangers involved in peaceful and well guarded, almost elbow to elbow police presence, prayer vigils, I think you should mind your own and leave the rearing of these children to their parents. I also believe the parents are doing a better job than you would with your imagined dangers and bogus comparisons. We are not exactly war-torn Israel yet, you know.


Amelia

If anyone is a threat to... (Below threshold)
cirby:

If anyone is a threat to my children, it is people like JT and others here who are ready to snatch my children away from me if I show up at a demonstration with them.

You left out the "where violence is being threatened, and where crazy people are trying to show up with guns" and "while I encourage my children to break the law" parts.

You'd do a lot more for your argument if you'd stop cutting out the important part of the other side's comments.


cirby: There are many other... (Below threshold)
mikem:

cirby: There are many others who have correctly pointed out that children are much more vulnerable to those type dangers in their daily lives, at school, at the mall, indeed in the home. I personally would not include my children in a demonstration, not for fear of violence (at a hospital, to save a woman's life?) but simply because they are too young to make a choice to participate. The greater threat comes from those who are much too eager to snatch children away from parents. Frankly, I can't believe there is anyone still trying to justify such a ridiculous, onerous action. Confiscate children from loving parents, inject them into the foster care program where they will be 'safe'. I guess one has to be a blogger to understand such counterintuitive judgement.

mikem:No, there ar... (Below threshold)
cirby:

mikem:

No, there are a couple of people who falsely claim that such dangers are higher, but that's just a load of hooey. Unless, of course, you send your kids to a school where you know that there's someone threatening to come in to do violence.

The Schiavo protest is under direct and ongoing threats from a bunch of crazy people (the guy who was going to come "rescue" Terri with a stolen gun, as I've pointed out a couple of times). They also have professional rabble-rouser Randall Terry on hand, which blows your entire "peaceful" claim out of the water by itself.

Every time you or the others claim that the situation at the Schiavo vigil is less dangerous than going to school or to the mall, you just admit that you don't have any substance to your arguments.


cirby: I guess if you could... (Below threshold)
mikem:

cirby: I guess if you could cite cases of children assaulted, raped, shot, kidnapped etc. at demonstrations you could balance them with the daily onslaught of horrific stories that emerge from schools, homes, backyards, and of course, the foster homes that JT has lined up to take in the confiscated children.
Give it up, cirby, or we'll start thinking you are as frightening as JT.
You want to be critical of JT's target, go right ahead. But if you seriously agree that children should be taken away from their parents for taking them to a demonstration............

For some reason, you tre... (Below threshold)
mcg:

For some reason, you treat it like it was on another continent or something, when the guy was EIGHT FRIGGING MINUTES AWAY.

Well, let's see. I'll take a gun, drive eight minutes away from my house, try and aim it back towards my house, and pull the trigger.

I'll bet I don't hit it. Or come even close.

Now of course, why would I try that? Because I'm insane.

So now you contend that the... (Below threshold)
Amelia:

So now you contend that the almighty State can do a better job and is more entitled to teach morals and religion to children than their own parents??? I don't think so nor does the State have the right. How very socialist of you! The fact that some nut all the way across town was trying to get a gun does not mean these children were in any danger for he did not get even close to them and why on earth would he attack the children in the unlikely event he even got close to the hospice. The crimes in most major cities would far surpass one man with one gun in this instance on any given day.

Yes, children certainly participated in civil rights marches and demonstrations and it is the right of every parent to do their best to instill their values in their children, teach them their religious beliefs and to do what is morally right. That is all these parents are doing and to vilify them in this manner is disgusting, mean-spirited and totally unwarranted. Much as many of you would like there to be danger, the fact was that there just was none. One PVS patient was with her sister on a stretcher, another who could barely stand with his father and a little boy was in a wheelchair. All came out of the prayer vigil unharmed.

While it is obvious that some would like to see the State step in and prevent parents instructing their own children in their own values, we have not yet reached that sorry state of affairs but it is indeed a very sad and ominous commentary that so many advocate the state has more parental rights than parents themselves so can it be far behind? How on earth can you even suggest such a thing is beyond my comprehension for it violates just about every freedom we in this country have. Obviously, some would just like the vigils shut down but why go to such extremes and vilify these parents in this manner when you really have no right to do so. Where is your proof the children were in danger? Certainly we should all stand up to what we believe is wrong regardless of the consequesnces. All arrests were token but even had they been real, surely you are not suggesting that we should teach our children to be afraid to speak out against what they believe is wrong if there is a misdemeanor arrest involved? I am thankful that this was not the attitude during the civil rights marches and at other times in our history or we would not have the freedoms and rights that we do, won by just the very sort of people, parents in this case, that you now condemn for doing the same things that won these freedoms for others and yourselves. Shame on you!! What have you done to insure freedom and the rights of others? Precious little I would venture to guess from your outrage that others have the courage you so sadly lack. Shame! How dare you say such things about others who are doing what you do not have the courage or will to do yourself but that have insured and garnered rights for all of us in the past, yes, with children and all and in just this same manner of peaceful vigil and protest.

Obviously many in the prayer vigil were Catholic as evidenced by the Roman collars and the spokesperson Monk who was very camera happy. This is the second post in as many days with a tinge of Catholic-bashing, Jay. Got a problem with us? Don't like the way we teach our children morals? Tough. We shall continue to do so as long as we are able to do it. Pretending those children were in some sort of danger is just silly. Last time I took my sons to a Major League Baseball game, a fight with a straight razor broke out all around us and a drunk barfed down my son's back but I don't see you saying the almighty State should put a stop to baseball. On the other hand, no prayer vigil we have ever attended has had even one incident even remotely close to violent. Nothing like the wild west shootout your thread is trying to turn the one in Florida into, shamefully.

The kids have no record as some have falsely contended, they do not actually go to jail nor spend the night there and the parents are not having the kids act in their stead. That's hogwash to put it mildly. The police stop them, put on the token plastic handcuffs and at most they get a ride in their car but probably not even that in this case. The three kids of one family that were "arrested" were also interviewed and had a much better grasp of what they were doing than most on this thread so if you do not understand it, it might be best to just shut up and mind your own business. No, the State has no right to interfere in the HARMLESS exercise of freedom of speech and religion as expressed in these prayer vigils which posed no danger to the children, the PVS patients, the priests nor anybody else except in the fevered imaginations of some who obviously would like them stopped. If you have some actual proof to the contrary, let's hear it. Otherwise, all this wild speculation about what was happening across town or could have, might have, is possible that could maybe sort of just does not apply. There has not even been the first punch thrown in that crowd and you are slandering some very fine people by pretending it is subject to break into violence at any time, just not so. Calling that which is good, evil. I have heard about folks who do that somewhere.

Good thing some of you are not in charge of the freedoms of the rest of us. As for me and mine, I will teach my children my values and religious beliefs as those are very basic rights that all of us have in this country. They are even very basic human rights like the right to reproduce in the first place. A part of that is having control of the values instilled in your children and not have the state or somebody with an exaggerated sense of danger do it for you. Each one has the right to teach their own kids the values they chose, not yours or somebody else's but their own. You are free to do the same with your own children, teach them your values, but until you have proof of actual danger or real harm instead of smears and comparisons to war-torn regions of the world that do not apply, neither you nor the state has any right to interfere whatsoever with parents allowing their children to participate in what to them are religious obligations.

But I do fear for the future of this country with people like you wanting to take these precious freedoms from us all. Many of these same freedoms were won in just this same manner, peaceful protest, children included. It is obvious that we have a genreration coming along that has no regard nor appreciation for individual freedoms and looks to the state (Florida which has one of the worst records for kids in foster care) for instilling values and morals in our children. To say these children should be taken from their parents is totally ludicrous and I, for one, think you should be ashamed. It's not even about politics as you and your socialist buddies keep contending. Both major political parties signed that bill. This is freedom of speech and religion you are messing with and you just have no right.

Amelia

So should I be arrested for... (Below threshold)
mcg:

So should I be arrested for taking my children into the mission field to serve the poor, even though we're at higher risk for crime and/or disease?

For some reason, you tre... (Below threshold)
julie:

For some reason, you treat it like it was on another continent or something, when the guy was EIGHT FRIGGING MINUTES AWAY.

First it was eight miles. Now it's eight minutes. What's next? Eight seconds?

Which answers the question. You are insane.

And if you weren't being intellectually dishonest, I would call you clinically paranoid. I guarantee you there is some a-hole who wd kill you as well as look at you within EIGHT FRIGGING MINUTES AWAY from you as we speak. Check out Megan's Law if you really want something to be afraid about.

When, during the civil rights marches, did the marchers send their young children out in front to provoke a confrontation with the cops?

Are you telling me there was more danger in the situation here than in the Selma and Birmingham marches? Give it up, cirby. Your statement about the civil rights marches was WRONG.

Every time you or the ot... (Below threshold)
julie:

Every time you or the others claim that the situation at the Schiavo vigil is less dangerous than going to school or to the mall, you just admit that you don't have any substance to your arguments.

Every time you claim that your concern is about safety as opposed to you disagreeing with these people's position on Schiavo you admit that YOU don't have any substancee to your argument.

Okay. Let me put in my two-... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Okay. Let me put in my two-cents. During the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, there were many kids (myself included) who were brought to peaceful demonstrations by parents and guardians. The police were arresting them, too. Should those children have been taken away from their parents? At 10 years old, I knew instinctively that racism and segregation were wrong. Jim Crow laws were evil. I'm proud of my parents for taking a stand and fighting an evil in the American psyche that we are paying for to this day. I'm no leftie. But if children want to be part of an action in trying to help stop the starvation and dehydration of an innocent woman, then more power to them. Also, unfortunately not everyone can afford a nanny and babysisters for their kids. Some may have had no choice than to bring their kids.

One other thing, I'm interested in seeing what happens to these arrested protesters. In New York, one of the protesters who beat and stomped on a cop during the RNC convention was released with all charges dropped. I didn't see any of the protesters in Florida exhibiting that type of behavior. Wonder is they'll be released as easily as someone who puts a cop in the hospital.

mcg, even if it was 8 miles... (Below threshold)

mcg, even if it was 8 miles away, supposed he had succeeded in stealing the gun. Then he would have tried to "Rescue" terry. What does that mean?it means taking the gun TO THE HOSPITAL and either firing shots or holding people at gunpoint until terry is released.

placing a 10 year old in that situation is reprehensible.

julie and mcg:You ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

julie and mcg:

You seem to have some sort of bizarre belief that the crazy guy with the gun was stuck in the place he was arrested at.

Eight miles equals eight minutes because we HAVE CARS in the modern world.

he was GOING TO DRIVE OVER FROM THE PLACE HE WAS TRYING TO STEAL THE GUN FROM. I don't know how you keep the bizarre derangement that he was going to stand there and not do anything. He was stealing the gun to go and try a "rescue."

Insisting that this guy was no threat because he was a few miles away when he was caught isjust asinine.

...and for every looney they catch, you know there's a dozen they didn't...

When, during the civil r... (Below threshold)
julie:

When, during the civil rights marches, did the marchers send their young children out in front to provoke a confrontation with the cops?

I have to revisit this because it bothers me too much. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, cirby, in that I don't think you realized how much of a disservice you did to the sacrifice people made back then.

Do I know who stood where in line? Nope. I wd assume the leaders were in front. I don't know where the kids were. Where they stood hardly lessened the danger they faced in that the potential of violence and the violence that did occur was great. Were the leaders aware of this? Of course. Did they want kids to get hurt? Nope. But, no one held a gun to anyone's head to participate. Was it the right thing to do? You better believe it. The effect it had on people sitting at home watching it on television was overwhelming.

Here, they made a short documentary and it won an Oscar:
'Mighty Times: Children's March'

Here's another review:
MIGHTY TIMES: THE CHILDREN'S MARCH took top honors in the Short category (films under 40-minutes). This film was co-directed and co-produced by Robert Hudson and Bobby Houston. It revisits 1963 when intense intimidation by civic authorities in Birmingham, Alabama left the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King floundering until thousands of children and students joined the fight and turned the tide.

A snippet from a law review article:

In the weeks that followed King's arrest [which resulted in him writing Letter from a Birmingham Jail], many of the African American children of Birmingham were trained in the practice of non--violence and followed King into the streets, where they were attacked by the police with dogs and high pressure fire hoses; thousands were jailed. Birmingham became the focus of a renewed national consciousness about segregation, and a spark that incited over a thousand civil rights campaigns throughout the summer of 1963, culminating in the "March on Washington." The Kennedy administration responded by introducing a major civil rights bill, which passed the following spring. That bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banned segregation in public accommodations as well as discrimination in employment. King attributed its passage to the events in Birmingham. Many view the Birmingham demonstrations as the turning point in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and King's decision to violate the injunction as the turning point in the Birmingham campaign.

Read the whole thing. It's long but good. Link

And, obviously, these weren't the only marches children participated in.

You seem to have some so... (Below threshold)
julie:

You seem to have some sort of bizarre belief that the crazy guy with the gun was stuck in the place he was arrested at.

No, we have the very sane belief that he did not portray a danger anymore than the many dangers out there whether you know about them or not. If we thought like you we couldn't do any thing but stay in our homes and cower. But give it up cirby, this has really nothing to do with any actual danger but only with the fact that you don't like what these people stand for.

Eight miles equals eight minutes because we HAVE CARS in the modern world.

I HAVE A CAR. Do you have any idea how long it would take me to get 8 miles on the free way with a posted 65 mph limit? You don't want to know. There could be someone anywhere in the world who could possibly do you harm. That's life.

he was GOING TO DRIVE OVER FROM THE PLACE HE WAS TRYING TO STEAL THE GUN FROM. I don't know how you keep the bizarre derangement that he was going to stand there and not do anything. He was stealing the gun to go and try a "rescue."

He didn't. Just like that car didn't veer off the street and leave tread marks on your face. He was detained by the store owner. My advice: never rob a gun store without a gun. OTOH, rob a gunstore with a gun and you're more likely to get killed. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation. Buy, carrying a cup of water to a dying woman isn't.

*****And, are you saying the situation was more dangerous than Birmingham in 1961? Birmingham in 1963? Selma to Montgomery in 1965? Shd the civil rights activists all been arrested and their kids taken away? Do you know of anyone who regrets marching with their children or children who regret marching with the adults? I don't.

Insisting that this guy was no threat because he was a few miles away when he was caught isjust asinine.

Insisting people must stop free speech because you don't like their position is asinine.

...and for every looney they catch, you know there's a dozen they didn't...

Welcome to modern life.

placing a 10 year old in... (Below threshold)
mcg:

placing a 10 year old in that situation is reprehensible.

Oh, please. This guy was INSANE. A NUTJOB. The next thing you know you'll be telling me I can't take my kid to the post office for fear of what the latest disgruntled employee might do. You guys are just being silly. There was no reason to believe that a peaceful prayer vigil was going to turn into gunfire.

Furthermore you'll notice that you guys have used this little detail to expand the scope of this argument. Originally we were talking about the 10-year-old kid, and others like him, who actively took part in the protest and got arrested. Now we're talking about anyone who took their kid anywhere near the hospice for any reason. They could have just been standing on the sidelines doing nothing, and now you're lumping those parents into the category of unfit, too.

Give it up.

Do I know who stood wher... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Do I know who stood where in line? Nope. I wd assume the leaders were in front. I don't know where the kids were. Where they stood hardly lessened the danger they faced in that the potential of violence and the violence that did occur was great.

Actually, when you see the photos and footage from that era, the one thing that should jump right out at you is that there weren't children in the big confrontational marches. When you look at the Selma march photos, you see adult men and women.

No kids. At least, not in the ten to thirteen age range we're talking about. There might have been some teenagers of 17 or 18, but no young children.


Oh, please. This guy was... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Oh, please. This guy was INSANE. A NUTJOB.

...who had been caught getting ready to go try an armed raid ON THE PLACE THESE FOLKS BROUGHT THEIR KIDS. Who they then put out front, in order to try and stir up trouble.

I HAVE A CAR. Do you have any idea how long it would take me to get 8 miles on the free way with a posted 65 mph limit?

Somewhat less than eight minutes.

Is the math too hard for you?

60 miles an hour is one mile a minute. Are you that lost as far as distances and measurements go?

No wonder you can't handle the idea of differences in risks.

Should I be arrested for ta... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Should I be arrested for taking my kid to Bush rally? My gosh, imagine all the lefty nutjobs who would love to get a gun into one of those.

Am I allowed to take my kids to Mexico for mission work? I mean, one bad drink of water and it's some serious Montezuma's revenge, baby. Or how about Africa, where there is a definite malaria risk?

Will CPS come knocking on my door if I give my kid flying lessions? If I take him hang gliding or parasailing?

Should I be arrested for... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Should I be arrested for taking my kid to Bush rally? My gosh, imagine all the lefty nutjobs who would love to get a gun into one of those.

Are you going to a Bush rally where a lot of people have been making real threats to attack the rally, where they've already arrested some folks for offering a bounty for attacking the rally, where one of the guys tried to get there with a gun from across town, where a famous anti-Bush activist with a history of violence is hanging out, and then have kids right up front to confront the Secret Service agents, instead of letting them do their jobs?

Wow, you have a magnificent... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Wow, you have a magnificent way of conflating past, present, and future events. As if they are somehow supposed to know while they're sitting there in a nonviolent protest while at the same time some nutjob is trying to steal a gun across town.

So it seems to me then that the answer is yes, they should arrest me for taking my kid to a Bush rally if, after the fact, it turns out there were some nutjobs planning violent protests.

At least you've made it clear.

Is the math too hard for... (Below threshold)
julie:

Is the math too hard for you?
60 miles an hour is one mile a minute. Are you that lost as far as distances and measurements go?
No wonder you can't handle the idea of differences in risks.

As you well know, this is one of the stupidest things you have written, cirby. Florida's crappy traffic is only surpassed by LA's. But, you know for a fact that it only takes 8 minutes to get from the store to the hospice. Oh, do you have the addresses? Or, are you just making this up, too?

Actually, when you see t... (Below threshold)
julie:

Actually, when you see the photos and footage from that era, the one thing that should jump right out at you is that there weren't children in the big confrontational marches.

I have seen photos and footage and did see kids I estimate to be 12. Also, I saw in Eye on theorize people interviewed who participated as children.
I also remembering reading a news story way back when in grade school about a 14 y/o girl who went to participate in the marches.

When you look at the Selma march photos, you see adult men and women. No kids. At least, not in the ten to thirteen age range we're talking about. There might have been some teenagers of 17 or 18, but no young children.

Okay, cirby, I take what I said back. You are intentionally denigrating these people's sacrifice in order to win a debate. Pretty pathetic. There were 40k people in the Selma march but you want us to believe you eyeballed each one!

Credibility, cirby, you lost yours.

Well, look, we've gotten wa... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Well, look, we've gotten way off track. We can actually agree to disagree on the appropriateness of taking kids to political functions, rallies, protests, whatever, and the appropriateness of having them participate in said functions.

The only reason I even bothered to enter this debate is the ludicrous suggestion that people actually ought to have their children taken away from them for such behavior. By our government no less.

Sorry folks, we give parents a lot of latitude to be screwoffs in this country---because the alternative is much worse. The last thing you or anyone else want is to have the government dictate your parental decisions. Pooh-pooh that as overreacting all you want, but it's already happening, thanks to the crap they feed kids in public schools.

You want to screw up a kid? Put him in foster care, and tell him the reason why was beause his government decided that nonviolent civil disobedience was a completely inappropriate civic lesson to teach your children. Wow, now there's a Harvard grad waiting to happen.

Hmm. This shd read: <... (Below threshold)
julie:

Hmm. This shd read:

Also, I saw in Eye on the Prize people interviewed who participated as children.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy