Guilty -- But of What?

Three suspects have been arrested and charged with obstructing justice and covering up their friend's involvement in the Boston bombing. According to NBC news, the three of them went to his dorm room after some mysterious comments made by him. When they arrived they took the time to watch a movie before looking into his backpack where they found fireworks containers which had been emptied of gunpowder. They then took the backpack and Tsarnaev's computer out of the room. To quote the NBC report, -- After leaving the dorm, the three friends "started to freak out" because they realized Tsarnaev was wanted in the bombing, Phillipos said, according to the feds.
They then "collectively decided to throw the backpack and fireworks into the trash because they did not want Tsarnaev to get in trouble," Kadyrbayev told agents, according to the complaint. --

It's clear enough that the three young men behaved foolishly and self-destructively. Obviously, they should have turned the evidence over to the authorities. That is not an issue. What does concern me is the rush to judgment I have heard both from the left and from the right.

It seems that everyone, at least everyone I have heard so far, is condemning these three young men as being guilty of helping to cover up the bombing out of concern for Tsarnaev's safety. It is important to note that no one is accusing them of having known about the bombing before they actually entered the dorm room and found the evidence. Nevertheless, if they were covering up for their friend they were indeed obstructing injustice and were indeed materially assisting a terrorist who might continue to commit terrorist acts to escape capture.

What I haven't heard in this discussion however, is an alternative scenario. It might be true it might not be true. I don't know. My point is that I don't think anyone really knows what their motives were at this stage. Condemnation should come slowly and cautiously. However disturbed we are, and we are all deeply disturbed, we should not rush to judgment.

Once again, let me make sure that I am not misinterpreted. No matter what the motivation of these three young man, their actions were foolish and self-destructive. Clearly they cannot be ignored. But the question of motivation is terribly important. Everyone is assuming that they did this for the single and sole purpose of helping a friend to escape justice. That is certainly one valid and entirely possible reason for their actions. But it is not the only one.

I suggest an alternative scenario. I do not suggest that this is what happened. I did not suggest that this is likely what happened. I suggest only that this might be what happened and, if it is what happened, then the young men's actions were foolish and self-destructive, but not intended to cause harm to anyone else, or even to protect their friend from justice.

I suggest that what might have happened is that these three young men, shocked at the strange attitude their friend had adopted upon their pointing out his resemblance to the bomber, went over to his dorm to investigate. If they actually believed he was guilty, it seems unlikely would've sat around watching a movie before taking other actions. But they did watch that movie, which makes me think that they just thought their friend was acting strangely and that they did not suspect at that time that he had, in fact, committed this vile act.

When they did discover the evidence, I think it is at least possible that their reaction was not how can we protect our friend but rather how can we keep them being blamed for what are crazy friend has done?

Again I repeat, I am not suggesting that this is what actually happened, only that it is an alternative possibility. Tsarnaev's buddies may have acted not out of a despicable concern for protecting their friend from the consequences of his actions but rather out of a more understandable fear that they would be falsely regarded as his accessories. If so, it does not eliminate the criminal nature of their actions. However, if they were acting out of a fear that they themselves would be falsely accused of being his accomplices then at least their actions become more explicable, even understandable.

I am posting this on my blog because I'm concerned by the universal assumption that I have heard repeated today that these three men acted entirely out of the desire to protect their friend, that they displayed nothing but contempt for those who were harmed in the bombing, and that in general their behavior was so extreme that it cannot be comprehended and that the rage and even hatred directed at them is justified. All of these statements I have heard repeatedly on a variety of news channels today. They may be correct. All I'm saying is that it's a bit early to be condemning these young man as willful accomplices in the attempted escape of this terrorist. It seems to me entirely possible that three young men in college may simply have overreacted as young men in college often do, and that they were attempting not to protect their friend from justice, but to protect themselves from being unjustly accused.

And I will say once again, even if this was their motive, it would still not eliminate the criminal nature of their actions. However, it would put their actions in a very different light. Far from being willing accomplices after the fact, they suddenly morph into young men so frightened that they behaved foolishly and irresponsibly in a misguided attempt protect themselves. In other words, they freaked out.

We will have a better idea of which scenario is correct in about a week. I suggest we withhold our condemnation until we have that more accurate picture of what actually took place.

Freidman and Vouchers

I have been down and out for a long time. I'm slowly cycling back up, as evidenced by my making a blog post. Not much of one, but nonetheless interesting.

As you read the following excerpt, please recall that Friedman, one of the founders of the voucher movement, wanted to end all public education in America because he regarded the system as socialist.


From https://www.au.org/church-state/may-2013-church-state/people-events/louisiana-voucher-plan-subsidizes-religion-au-warns

-- “The diversion of existing public school resources to voucher schools will result in taxpayer support for religi­ous instruction at religious schools, with little to no oversight by the State, let alone the public,” asserts the brief. The brief cites specific examples, noting that some religious schools taking part in the program use textbooks that reject evolution and teach that humans coexisted with dino­saurs, that dinosaurs may still be living today and even that Scotland’s Loch Ness Monster exists.

Other texts assert that environmentalists seek to destroy the economy, that God used the mistreatment of Native Americans to convert them to Christianity and that many people in Africa are illiterate because they are not Christians. --

Nice curriculum. What's next? Maybe the dinosaurs died out because they weren't Christians? A pean to witch burning during the Protestsnt Discipline? All funded by the taxpayers of Louisiana.


The definition of pean, the meaning of the word Pean :Is pean a scrabble word? Yes!
n. - (ancient Greece) a hymn of praise (especially one sung in ancient Greece to invoke or thank a deity). From: http://www.scrabblefinder.com/word/pean/

Public Schools, Charter Schools, No Schools?

Posted by a colleague from auld lang syne:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?utm_source=buffer&feature=youtu.be&v=HtTGMqHYaJk&buffer_share=5a5e7&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DHtTGMqHYaJk%26feature%3Dyoutu.be%26buffer_share%3D5a5e7%26utm_source%3Dbuffer

My comment:

Many are surprised to find that Milton Freedman, generally regarded as the founder of the charter school movement, believed that our public schools are socialist and should be dismantled. "The establishment of the school system in the United States as an island of socialism in a free market sea ..."

The charter school movement was originated, and remains, largely an effort to put an end to free public education.

Mr. Friedman clearly believes that free enterprise, free choice, and the competitive market are the foundations of our country's success. I believe these were contributors, but I also believe that altogether they contributed less to our success than the free public education system. And that is something he opposes.

CPS -- Government vs. Parent?

CAPTA (the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) is a law which certainly has good intentions but which has proven to be very controversial. The problem with the whole situation is that people look at this the wrong way. They see threat and respond emotionally. Both sides need to rationally consider the situation. There are plenty of accusations and plenty of facts which indicate abuse on both sides of the problem. There are abusive parents and children do need protection. On the other hand, there are cases in which workers have been overzealous and the system has shown itself to be terribly flawed .

Every child care professional has experienced both sides of this problem. The answer is not to take an extreme position. Extremism is always a problem, in and of itself. We have a much better range of choices than to eliminate the organization entirely or to give it even more power.

Better training of social workers, more oversight, more workers so that they are not overwhelmed with huge caseloads, an appropriate defender for the parents who will support their rights when they are confused and frightened and uncertain of the correct action: all of these would greatly contribute to a much better system.

The biggest changes that would help would be simply better trained workers in appropriate numbers. Better training insures that workers make more careful, rational decisions. It would help them make more accurate decisions. And having enough workers guarantees a worker can put the time into making those accurate, correct decisions.

When a worker knows a child's life may be in his or her hands, they must make a decision. They don't want to become the abuser by hurting an innocent family, but on the other hand if they make the wrong decision a child may die. To make a good decision requires careful investigation, a large investment of time, a great deal of thought and consideration, but this cannot be when you have a huge caseload.

When I first started working Adelanto, one of the things the old-timers told me was how CPS had once been a serious and respected friend in the community. Not just a friend of educators, but a friend of parents. That was because at that time Adelanto was very small, the number CPS workers was comparatively high. They had time to work with families. They were able to actually go into homes and teach and guide parents. CPS was not necessarily considered to be a danger to parents at that time.

But as the little city grew and as the number of caseworkers did not grow accordingly, things changed. The workers are now stressed. They have to get answers quickly and they no longer have time for in-depth investigations. They do not have time to get to know the families. They do not have time to give help. They have become strangers, outsiders, invaders who simply come in and often make old problems worse and may even generate new problems

Right now in American government it is very hard to convince people that we need to spend additional money. Yet, the simple fact is, if we wish a system like this to work and actually protect children and help families, it requires an expenditure of money. When you need cancer surgery or treatment for some other terrible disease you do not say, "Well I'll just take the cheapest doctor." You get the best doctor that you can afford to buy. And yet as a nation we look at our children and say, "Oh well, we don't want to waste money on THEM."

I can tell stories from both sides of this problem. One of the most cogent things I can say is that is very important to remember is that whenever we made a call to CPS, and we called them often, we were either relieved or upset when we found out the name of the social worker assigned to the case. The entire system is dependent upon the effectiveness and the competence of one single individual, the investigating social worker. A good social worker and we were all relieved as we knew the job would get done, would get done well and it that it would serve the needs of the community and the family. The wrong investigator and we were worried. We knew things would not go well for anyone.

The solution to the problem, then, is an appropriate investment of time, training and functionality. There are other issues I haven't even discussed, since I perceive the key issues being the proper training of workers and having the proper number of workers with the time to apply that training effectively. Those two things alone would vastly reform the system. But both of them would cost money. It costs more money to train workers better, better trained workers expect higher pay, and obviously it costs more to have more workers available. We must ask are our children worth it? If they are then we must spend the money. If they are not worth it, then we should save money and let whatever happens to the children happen.

Other problems which need to be addressed include the following:

One. We've already discussed the fact that too few workers leads to large caseloads leads to poor quality work.

Two. We also discussed in proper training or incomplete training leads to workers of different qualities and capabilities. A good worker does a good job, a not so good worker a very poor job

Three. Parents are not represented unless they are able to afford an attorney. This is entirely inappropriate. There should be a government appointed representative who takes the family side, which includes making sure the parents rights are being respected. Theoretically CPS takes the family side, but this is not always true.

Four. The system is terribly flawed in that regards parents as guilty until proven innocent once a child has been removed. This is unconstitutional. In any other crime, you are innocent until proven guilty. Once a child is been taken away, since the courts interest lays in protecting the child at that point, officials often refuse to return the child until the parents admit they are guilty, even if they are innocent. This is done in an attempt to protect the child from parents were unwilling to face the truth. But if the parents are innocent then it is the CPS worker and the government who are not facing the truth and it is they who are abusing the child and the family. This is wrong and must be addressed.

Five. The laws are too vague and unclear. For example, we once had a staff meeting back in the 1970s. During it a visiting CPS worker stated to the staff that she believed that while spanking was legal using a belt to administer a spanking was clearly abuse and in such a case of child had to be removed from the home. A teacher promptly stood up and said, "Put the handcuffs on me then, because I'm guilty." She was a very good teacher and a very good parent. I am certain she never abused her children. Other staff members backd her up and said much the same thing. The point is that different workers have different opinions about what is or is not abuse. That is not acceptable. We must have clear standards.

Six. In many cases in which I had reported abuse, once the investigation had begun the parents simply moved away to another school district, sometimes out of the state. Of course there were attempts to follow up, but sometimes the results were tragic. If a case has validly been opened, the parent should not be able simply move away and thus keep their children in danger and at risk. Of course, it also follows that all cases which reach such a level must be valid. And that's what the other reforms are intended to accomplish.

Let me finish by making a comment to those who are opposed to the continued existence of CPS. Yes, there have been abuses. In some cases innocent families have been harmed by intervention instead of guilty families being saved from hurting their own children. Nevertheless, the problem is real. Over the years, I have called CPS many times and I have many terrible memories of serious abuse incidents. The problem is not a simple one, and defies simplistic solutions. We must work together, government and parents, to protect our children in an appropriate and effective manner. This is not easy, but it is a necessity.

Resurrection -- Well, Sort Of

Three days ago I went out very worried. But I made it back intact. Today I went out again. Only three hours in a silent dark room after I got back, and I feel OK. I am getting better and getting there fast.

Rejoice

From the LA Times -- Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio has become one of the most prominent elected Republicans to announce his support for same-sex marriage, a "change of heart" that he said began when his son told him that he was gay. --

Sen. Portman's rather remarkable declaration has led to condemnation from both sides. There are those among the tolerant angry at him for taking so long to finally get here and over his previous record. There are those on the conservative side angry him for having changed his position.

I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln. There are those who criticize him for having taken so long to finally realize that abolition was an absolute necessity. And there are those, even in this day, who criticize him for offending the South's "right" to traffic in human flesh. In Lincoln's case, I'll agree with Fredrick Douglas. Douglas said that it was terrible that it took Lincoln so long to finally get there, but, he added, at least he had finally arrived and it was pretty hard to criticize that.

Senator Portman was lost, but now is found; was blind, but now he sees. Good for him.

In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who repents. -- Luke 15:10

Pi, The Number

You've seen the movie, now memorize the number!

Actually, as the LA Times reports, it's pi appreciation day. I'm heating up a cherry pie...how about you?

Pi, one of the one of the weirdest numbers...it's like infinity. The more you think about it, the stranger it gets. Say, is there a square root of negative one day?