Trauma by the CPS

There are two kinds of people who have the gall to forcefully take a child out of their home: kidnappers, and CPS workers. In order to do the job, the caseworker has to harness the same guiltless energy that a kidnapper does in order to enter a home and tear a child off their parents. The only difference for the adults is the rationale. The only difference for the child is that the kidnapper does it behind the the parents' back, while the CPS worker does it right in front of their faces.

Kidnappers remove children for personal, selfish reasons, for the worse, while CPS workers remove children in an attempt to provide for their welfare and well-being in ways that aren't properly being served--for better or worse. We shouldn't forget that the primary motivating factor for the kidnapper is kidnapper-focused, while it is child-focused for the CPS worker, but our attention to the "motivations" and "intentions" for the perpetrator or the public servant ought to be secondary to our concern for the child's actual welfare. However, in justifying the knee-jerk removal of a child from an otherwise loving home, for ill-defined reasons, often the caseworker's "motivation" to remove takes precedence in our minds over the child's actual well-being.

When a small child is ripped from their parent's arms by a stranger, does the child care what the "intentions" of the person doing the ripping are? Of course not. It is a traumatic event for a child to be removed from a loving home. This is not to say that such interventions don't have their place--in cases involving extreme abuse and neglect--but perhaps worse than good people failing to do the right thing is good people thinking they are doing the right thing as they do the wrong thing. This happens when children are removed from homes where no abuse or neglect is happening.

The state is slow to reverse their mistakes because admitting to a mistake jeopardizes their public legitimacy. The agency tasked to judge the legitimacy of parents, does not not like to be judged itself. Legitimacy is always more important to the state than the child's welfare. Any parent who has caused the amount of trauma that even the most "well-meaning" caseworker and court is capable of inflicting on children in a single night, wouldn't be allowed to keep the child, even by the state's own standards.

The issue is, are we more concerned about the trauma children in that situation are facing, or are we more concerned for the ill-conceived "good intentions" of the person who has caused that trauma? If we were child-focused, whether they are removed by a kidnapper or removed by a well-meaning but equally traumatic CPS worker, we'd recognize the trauma for the child either way. Instead though, we put the "well-meaning" part ahead of the trauma in the case of the CPS removal, because the caseworker carries with her the cold calculation of unquestionable authority, and the kidnapper carries the absolute opposite. We then regard what the child is feeling there, no matter how traumatic, to be a "necessary" part of their well-being. Trauma is  never necessary though, regardless of who is inflicting it.

The CPS ought to remain in operation, only so long as it can admit to its screw ups in a timely manner.

Big Brother

If the twentieth century saw the rise of oppression for the national good, then the twenty-first will no doubt see the reemergence of totalitarianism for the children's good. That is to say, Big Brother used to be interested in regulating and controlling human expression on the pretense of national security, and for a while he was able to sell himself on that, but then the people got wise to it and went so far as to even turn "socialism" into a bad word.

However, Big Brother couldn't be kept down, and with the help of a whole new "social menace of the decade," has found a new avenue to gain back converts. Namely, to protect the children in the 21st century, our human rights to privacy and safeguards from intrusion have to be given up. That is the new deal. That is the new exchange Big Brother's selling us on. Where once, and in many ways still, it was the threat to our country from without intended to scare us into submission, now it is the threat from within, to our children.

I am of course referring to HR 1981, the so-called "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act," which does nothing but make it mandatory for ISPs to do what they already do--collect and retain the personal data and trafficking habits of internet users right down to your name, address, phone numbers, credit card and bank numbers, and all IPs you use. The issue with it is not so much the storage of data, but the fact that storing all your personal information for retrieval by the government at their discretion does nothing to protect children from pornographers--despite the title of the bill it is hiding behind. All it does is makes it easier for the government to spy on the computer use of individuals from a massive database from which they can use for many stated and unstated purposes.

How long will it be tolerated is uncertain, but if the history of all past social menaces is any guide, it will itself eventually be toppled and replaced. Eventually someone will make a menace out of child protectionism itself, and then what will we be left with? A society where protecting children is itself a bad word? This is not so much paranoia as it is hypocrisy that has become legislated because of paranoia. Is it at all possible that for once we could just have balance, or is human nature made too anxious by its children to save itself from destruction?

Love in a Sound Bite

I've heard the most poignant recitation of what we're really on about here, no doubt better articulated than I have made it. It was made by Dr. Cornel West, professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, while promoting his autobiographical book Hope on a Tightrope.

"Justice is what love looks like in public, just as tenderness is what love feels like in private."

Justice is the public expression of our compassion for the well being of others, and injustice is the public expression of the opposite. Those who express injustice or "perverted justice" against others in public, are incapable of expressing tenderness in private. They are devoid of compassion. They are vigilantes, downpressers, and molesters motivated by selfish desires. Let us consider that those who haven't been reprimanded for this wrongdoing have also been treated unjustly.

These expressions are connected. If we can not show tenderness in private, as the childlover may express toward a child, or as we as human beings ought to be expressing toward one another in general, we grow incapable of realizing a just world in public. We continue to see disparity where we should see charity, and because of disparity (in class, race, gender, sexuality, and age), we continue to see hatred, bigotry, and fear.

Those who are motivated by an expression of love (like the love for a child) realize their ideal on their own terms, while those who are motivated by that hatred, bigotry, and fear, go the way of the vigilante.

Seven Curses on Molestation

Today I think for the first time I felt that "genuine sense of revulsion toward the abuser" that all of society seems to fall back on. I'm not usually one easily swayed by sensationalism, but this deeply disturbed me. I saw this child screaming and something just kicked inside. I stomped my foot on impulse and practically broke into tears. I am human after all.

There's something wrong with a society that is panicked over child molestation who will willingly sit back and not bat an eyelash at a child screaming "stop touching me!" and clamoring to get away as they're effectively "groped" in full view of their parents. In the natural world, when something preys upon the young of an animal, they're supposed to react, the child's evolutionary response to clamor to a parent who they "expect" is going to protect them. But when said parent is rendered incapable of stopping the predator from preying upon the child, parent/child protective bond is severed. The severing of the parent/child bond is nothing new to Babylon--modern society has been finding ways of doing it for decades.

It's against nature, I say, to do this to children boarding a plane. I wouldn't be surprised if that kid shows all the signs of a victim of true sexual molestation following this episode. This child has done nothing wrong, and has essentially been violated against her will. I don't blame the parent, I don't blame this particular TSA worker. What is to blame is the system that has allowed such downpressers to flourish without reproach. For any service that can make the media justify its sensationalism must truly be a product of evil.

A parent, or any adult who has purchased a ticket for a plane, can at least say "I agree to accept the pat down because I want to avail myself of your transportation services in return," and that is on the surface fine, seeing as it is a consensual interaction. There's the key word, consent! If without consent, the groping of a human being is indeed "molestation," then what has transpired here with this three year old IS nothing but. In her view, she simply rose up that morning, went wherever the adults told her, and was subsequently violated.

And if it was sexual, and not a TSA search, though they yield the same result, people would suddenly care about what she felt as a consequence of this non-consensual violation. They'd officially ordain that child a "victim" and have her in therapy. They'd lynch mob the house of the offender in the twilight. They would feel the utter disgust I felt while watching this unfold, as should be their nature. But because it's a TSA search, it's business as usual. The public has been desensitized to child molestation when it is carried out by sources they are instructed to trust, and only notices it when it is carried out by sources they are instructed to hate.

These be seven curses on downpressers both rogue and institutional:
That one doctor will not save them. That two healers will not heal them. That three eyes will not see them. That four ears will not hear them. That five walls will not hide them. That six diggers will not bury them. And that seven deaths will never kill them

Power of Choice

As questionable as any abstract policy, agency, cultural concept, or limitation is, it can be rendered limp with just the choices, the words and actions, of human beings. Individuals--be them adults or children, social workers, teachers, parents, legal guardians, child care workers, independent agents--each and everyone, has the power to overcome the limitations of what society has established collectively. Human passion transcends bureaucratic disenfranchisement, because it existed before it and will continue to exist, it prevails where the system fails.

It is the difference between the life and passion of the warm heart and the paycheck for the cold heart. One has the power to help the world, the other to watch it crumble and run. It's the difference between the active and the passive soul working in a dehumanizing system, the stiff professional downpresser and the warm personal caregiver, the cog and the human--and all it takes to propagate is a loving, caring, and reasonable perspective. When that personal perspective is on the table, one can truly help kids. Without it, one can only do damage.

It may not make you hip or gain you friends, and certainly may put you at odds with the systems of control in the world, the cultural schemes, but you stand a chance of really improving a child's life on the most personal level if you allow a bit of yourself to shine through. Children respond to that, because evolution has produced in them that instinct long before we had things like the CPS around to siphon it away. It is natural for a child to respond well to an adult that actually cares for them, and also completely natural for them to resist those who are only in it for the check.

The choice is out there. We may have these cushy titles and social roles given to us, such as "teacher" or "parent" or "social worker," but it makes little difference if we fail to truly lend the personal touch that allows anyone fulfilling those positions or others like them to make a difference in the lives of the next generation. It's the only power individuals truly manifest. If one wants power, don't go for high titles and recognition, but instead, humble and give of oneself first. The shorter trees let light be shared among the saplings, the tallest ones just block it.

Keeping Up the Fight

CL is not child protectionism under a different set of rules. It doesn't wear anyone else's mask, it lives by it's own terms and still manages to fit comfortably into society undetected. It calls out the vigilantes, the ageists, the protectionists, the molesters--downpressers of all varieties--and seeks to preserve the dignity and integrity of not just children, but of the society to which they are members. Indeed, the protectionist's heaven would be the CL's hell, and vice versa.

The protectionist's heaven would be a society motivated by fear, where children are put in jeopardy by the institutionalized, bureaucratic safety mechanism itself, which would only justify its own existence in doing so. It would be a society running on the fears caused by the inadequacies that power it's engine. The vigilante's heaven would be a society where justice is perverted such that they rule the streets to gratify their sick lust for power over their personal adversaries. The heaven of the true child molesters would be a society where they are able to perform their sick deeds without guilt, somehow escaping justice and justifying their own actions however they see fit.

It should be easy to see how any of these scenarios would be the CL's hell, because in none of them are children or adults forefront on the priority. All three are primarily motivated selfishly, and only the vigilante may or may not have insight into how children factor little into their real motivation for action. So let there be no mistaking the CL and these groups who also find themselves hovering around society's youth. Just as much as the downpresser's heaven is a threat to CL though, the CL's heaven is a threat to the downpresser, which is why we have to keep up the fight to make it real.

Child is the Nigger of the World

"Think about it, do something about it.."

Whenever you look at age based laws, you have to start going back to 18th and 19th century social customs to find even a trace of justification for them. We haven't the originality to break free of them yet, despite 200 years of progress in all other realms of the social practice. The young ones today are left behind, unwilling participants in the social prejudices of their great grandfathers. Just as well, this isn't something unique to modern, western culture, but is true of nearly all people at all time throughout history. Child is the slave of the slave, the impish servant of the servant, and unless bestowed to the inhuman heights of God-head or King, has never been regarded by civilized society for being, simply, the human beings they are.

A minor is a citizen below the age of majority (whatever the country sets), that requires certain provisions, restrictions, and protections enforced by the state for the preservation of their own good as deemed acceptable by the law.

A non-parent's love for a child breaks all these artificial and socially produced boundaries, and in doing so, presents a natural cure for their unnatural ills. Downpressers, be them child molesters or child advocates, work to confine and control. CLs work to give children every right that they claim for themselves. Downpressers limit a child's freedom of movement to protect safety, freedom of choice and self determination in exchange for peace of mind, and provide services in ever-increasingly restrictive environments. CLs, just by remaining outside the modes of control, are free to offer a child a complete freedom of movement, the freedom of choice (to be with the CL on their own accord), and provide services for the child as an act of personal charity rather than for the collection of paychecks, stipends, or even volunteer credit.

Downpressers establish the minor code that restricts a child's access to opportunities to improve their quality of life. The CL offers the child the step up at the drinking fountain when the child is in need of a drink. Downpressers afford the minor no right to control their body, nor do they allow the child any dignity regarding privacy in hygene and respecting the child's private space. CLs afford the child as much distance as needed, because the CL is not bound to the outdated regulations concerning the treatment of minors. Downpressers restrict a child's right to be with whom they choose in ways they choose that may upset the balance of power. CLs encourage the child's freedom of association, choice of friends, and membership in groups, because they don't have to fear loosing any power imbalance separating them from the child.

Downpressers the world over deny a child's right to express themselves, to think and say what they want, especially when the child has a perfectly legitimate reason for doing such. Under the love of a CL, the child will fear no reprisal for expressing themselves, especially when they have a legitimate gripe with the prejudices they face. Downpressers have established that nothing, even that which the child manages to purchase or work for on their own, belongs to the child, and reserve the right to abscond with any piece of property in the hands of a minor at their discretion. True CLs believe a child has the right to acquire, use, and dispose of possessions and funds as they please, and don't manipulate a child's will to do such for their own benefit.

Downpressers restrict children's rights capriciously, particularly in the area of justice and due process. No CL has ever thrown an eight year old in juvenile detention for skipping school. Downpressers are obsessed with providing for a child's general physical well-being and safety, but deprive them of other rights in the process. No true CL has ever deprived a child of a any right to self-hood based on preserving some feeling of the child's well-being. The child's well-being is only preserved by preserving all of the child's rights. Anybody who has claimed to be a CL and has not upheld any child their rights, is no CL, but a downpresser in disguise.

Where the downpresser seeks to ground the chick, the CL seeks to teach it to fly. Regulations or selfish desires can not nurture a child, only love can.

The Fate of Downpressers

Downpresser man, where you gonna run to? All along that day. You gonna run to the sea but the sea will be boiling. When you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling. All along that day. You gonna run to the rocks but the rocks will be melting. When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting. All that day.

You drink your big champagne and laugh, all along that day. I wouldn't like to be a flea under your collar, man, all that day. --Tosh

All authority figures governing human civilization are, and have always been, and in many ways need to be, downpressers. It is just a function of pretending to be all-mighty on the earth that one looses their soul, they loose the capacity for compassion, the capacity for empathy, the capacity for tolerance. In their world, they are bogged down in the bureaucracy they willed upon themselves by choosing to be a civic worker, a public persona, and they loose the capacity to be anything but.

These are any authority figure, including government people, police and corporate management, including all those on the front lines of population control (police, the media, social workers, justice system workers, CPS workers... etc.), and anyone who tries to control the thoughts, deeds, how we choose to communicate or what we choose to communicate about. These and other similar forces in society can only be understood as a necessary evil.

Should we be empathic towards these individuals who have chosen to run our society for us? Who have chosen to be this necessary evil? One would think. After all, who among us would willingly trade in our compassion for a heartless beaurocratic regimen? Who would trade in their love for their own child so they can work in an institution responsible for treating human beings as cattle? Surely, we owe our public servants and masters a debt of gratitude for being capable of denying their humanity on a daily basis.

What we don't owe them anything for, is their attempt to deny our humanity in due process, nor the humanity of children. We don't have to sympathize with their plight because it is one they have brought upon themselves. They perform their function for society and are greatly needed to usher us toward their own idealized promised land, but that is the absolute extent of their use. They are performers, they are functional entities destined to grow old in the system, strong in the ways of commanding people and serving them in their neat and orderly lines, but weaklings by all other comparison. The rest of us, though dehumanized in their presence, are made of far greater stuff, because we are allowed to leave. We are allowed to experience the world. We are allowed to be human.

Those who are tasked with being responsible are responsible entities. They are called "units of care" when they are put in control of children. They are called "public servants" when they are put in control of keeping a community safe. The responsibility to serve us and the authority manifested in this position allows them to become our masters. This is the only function they can perform. One who is tied down to the earth can't be moved, nor can they move themselves. Those who can move will trample on them. Downpressers today will fall down tomorrow, and on that day, not a tear will be shed in gratitude for their works. In fact, even the children will laugh.

Only the oppressed will ever know vindication. Downpressers will only know the weight of their own justice.