Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Big Brother?  We needn't even go so far as Orwell's novel...it 
    reminds me of what I've read of the Red Guards in China, the Young 
    Pioneers in the Soviet Union, and the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany.  
    Molding, manipulating, indoctrinating the ideologically naive young 
    people into becoming tools of the state.  Congratulations, Mr.
    President.  Walt Kelly said it best: "We have met the enemy, and 
    he is us!"
    
    Now, I'll weasel.  The mother definately has a substance abuse problem
    and the kid was definately neglected; don't remember where I saw this
    (I don't watch much tv at all, and my retention is zilch) but for the
    child, this has probably improved his living situation.  Its the
    narking aspect and the media publicity that are going to do the real
    damage; I expect the kid to eventually have huge guilt feelings just
    because of all the attention.  One more casualty of the phony War on
    Drugs hysteria.
    
    DougO

    Re .1, I agree.  I was thinking that it reminded me of the
    "criticizing" that I've read about in the cultural revolution in
    China.
    
    Lorna
    

I don't get the references to "Drop A Dime" and "Dime Dropping." Can
someone explain please?

Kathy

I take it from context that to "drop a dime" means to inform, ie: a tattletale?
My first impression was that it was a new (that is, unheard by me) term for
taking drugs.  After all, a "dime" is a measure of drugs (some), and 
dropping is a term for taking drugs (a different some), so...  But I take it
that this is not the case.

At any rate, I think kids *should* be able to report their parents - if their
parents addiction is damaging to themselves *and* to their children (seems
likely that it would be at least partial cause of abuse and/or neglect) then
it seems in the child's best interest to be able to do so.  And after all,
children can report abuse to the welfare department (although seldom do,
as I understand.)

But I think the president encouraging kids to "tattle" and rewarding them
with pictures and national recognition, making them into a hero, rather than
a kid just doing what s/he has to do in self-defense is awfully 
reminiscent of the Hitler Youth and Big Brother.  I think there is a big
difference between making it known to children that they can (and how) to
report family troubles, and encouraging them to seek out such troubles.

D!

    
    
    	What next?? Today they ask the children (Via our drug zar) to
    	snoop, yes activily snoop thru their parents stuff and turn-in
    	the ones that have anything to do with drugs. What will tommorow
    	bring? Will it be, "Gee kiddies, better check out ole daddy as
    	he may have some porno mag lying around and if you do find
    	one call 201 555-1212 and the President will send you a big
    	glossy 8X10 of himself". 1984 has indeed come, only Wells
    	should have looked at real life to get some of his ideas.
    
    	G_B

>But I think the president encouraging kids to "tattle" and rewarding them
>with pictures and national recognition, making them into a hero, rather than
>a kid just doing what s/he has to do in self-defense is awfully 
>reminiscent of the Hitler Youth and Big Brother.

 Since the war on drugs is a political as well as social issue, let's try
something that is just a little less controversial, so I can test my thesis.

 How would you feel if instead of dropping a dime about parental drug use,
the president was encouraging children who are victims of child abuse or who
know that their parents (or any adult) engage in child abuse to "narc" or
"tattle?" Would it be ok then? Would "rewarding <children> with pictures and
national recognition" be acceptable in that scenario?

 I imagine most people would have little objection to that. And yet there is
objection to children asking for help for drug abusing parents. While I 
personally believe that drug use does not necessarily constitute drug abuse,
I recognize that there are indeed some drug abusers whose actions negatively
affect their offspring, and that if no other adult will come to the children's
rescue the children must do it themselves.

 Where do we draw the line between children working proactively to get out of
a bad situation and parents being harrassed by the government through their
children? It's a tough question.

 It is clear that both the current administration and the congress believe that
drug use is equivalent to drug abuse. John "I used to smoke pot but now I'm
clean so none of you better smoke" Kerry believes it. Ted Kennedy believes it.
So it's not just those mean old nasty republicans; it's practically all
politicians. It is politically correct (sorry, but it is) to oppose ANY use
of illegal drugs (and the arguments seem to be especially forceful from those
who slug down cup after cup of liquid uppers or who consume alot of alcohol or
smokers). The key here is "illegal" drugs. Legal drug abuse is ok, fine.

 I personally see nothing wrong with children being congratulated by the
president for working to get themselves out of a harmful, neglectful or
dangerous situation. On the other hand, I see the potential harm in using
kids to spy on their parents. I don't think that "narking" and "tattling"
accurately describe the current situation, though they potentially may in
the future (if such a program were to be expanded).

 The Doctah

>1984 has indeed come, only Wells
>    	should have looked at real life to get some of his ideas.

 Er, the author of 1984 was George Orwell. :-)

    Re: .12                                          
    
    I think it depends upon what constitutes "the violation of the
    kids."
    
    If parents do drugs of any type - coke, alcohol, speed, Chesterfield
    cigarettes - and otherwise do not abuse their kids, indeed, they are
    great parents in every way imaginable, do you consider that the kids
    are being violated (whatever you mean by that)? 
    
    I'm not going to debate whether anybody who does drugs can possibly
    be a great parent. I believe they can.
    
    Conversely, have you never heard of parents abusing their kids -
    physically, sexually, emotionally - who are totally "drug-free"?
    
    Why just limit this program to kids "finking" on their parents? Let's
    offer Georgie Bush photos to anyone who turns in somebody doing drugs:
    wifes turn in their husbands, friends turn in friends, Noters turn in
    Noters........... 
    
    I mean we really must get serious with The War On Drugs. We've been
    fucking around long enough. It's time to DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING. So
    what if we make our kids good little brownshirts?
    
    Imagine what we can accomplish if we go to a "Drop A Buck" concept.
     
      Alan

    
    	Opps, wrong author!! Oh well, both of them are/were good writers!
    
    	RE: .12
    
    	Well Herb, maybe you can justify the means by looking at the end,
    	but for me the ends can not justify the means. What is happening
    	is children are being asked to spy on parents plain and simple!
    	You sound like you approve, and you have that right, but say in
    	two years if they make smoking illegal, would you support Big
    	brother (government) having kids spy on mom and dad to make sure
    	they don't smoke? If not, why the difference? Is it ok to spy for
    	one reason and not for another? How about if dad has an unregistered
    	gun in the house? It's illegal, but the owner doesn't intend to
    	commit any crime with it. Does it matter, being only that what
    	matters is it's an illegal act and therefore kids should report
    	the parents for it?
    
    	IMO, anytime Big Brother asks kids to spy on parents we are
    	setting a situation that threatens everyones civil rights. Are
    	we doomed to be a soiciety where everyone spies on everyone and
    	are controlled by the state and it's current demands to conform
    	to what it sees as good/evil, right/wrong, moral/unmoral?
    
    	G_B

    
    i believe an important aspect of the situation is that the child(ren)
    involved were in effect bribed to obtain evidence that it would have
    been illegal for the police themselves to obtain (no warrant, etc.).
    

    
    	RE: .20
    
    	Herb,  Whoa!!  come on now, asking questions is not a debate.
    	I asked so I could hear YOUR view as to why you support this
    	view. I never said you were wrong, or even tried to change
    	your view. I did ask so as I could better understand your
    	view. Do you mean that this conference should become a place
    	where you only state your views and move on? Where's the
    	discussion in that? You say it's x and I say y. To discuss
    	it I say y is so in order to aid you in my thought process.
    	If you refuse to discuss how you reached your conclusion
    	the discussion stops there and is again back to stating 
    	opinions only. I don't intend to get into a heated debate
    	on the subject, but I was left wondering alot about your
    	stance and why you thought that. 
    
    	To the moderators: If I'm wrong in my thinking process, I'd
    	indeed like to be informed of such. I understand how everyone
    	is so gunshy so to speak after some of the exchanges of the
    	past, but hope that doesn't kill all discussions.
    
    	G_B

I know this is a tangent, but: does anyplace give real alcoholic wine for
communion (like the Catholic church)? Is communion given to church members
under 21?
	Mez

    Further discussion-vs-debate discussion should be taken to the
    processing topic in v3 please.
    
    						=maggie

    Mez
    
    The Episcopal church and the Lutheran church both give wine for
    communion as do some Roman Catholic churches. In each case anyone
    who is accepted for communion (baptised, baptised + first communion
    classes, or baptised and confirmed) partakes of both bread and wine
    no matter the age.
    
    Bonnie

    I've moved the notes discussing Native Americans and peyote use to a
    new note, 1104....
    
    -Jody
    

    Children should have a way to ask for help in an abusive situation. 
    But what seems to be happening with this program is that the children are
    being asked to turn their parents in regardless of whether they are
    being abused because of their parents drug use.
    
    I tend to agree that this is a cheap tactic that could leave children
    with a lot of scars (as well as leading to further requests to squeal
    on parents).
    
    I would much rather see a campaign where children can call a number to
    get help in any type of situation simply because they need the help and
    *not* because the government is using them to spy on their parents.
    
    *All* children should feel that they deserve a reasonable quality of
    life and that it's OK to take action to get it.  Children should *not*
    be encouraged to turn their parents in simply because their parents'
    actions are not approved by the government. 
    
    Meredith
    

    I did see the tv programs that hosted the children who told on their
    parents.  Frankly, after listening to their story, they had every
    right to "rat" on them.
    
    I feel that President Bush planted an idea into their poor defenseless
    helpless little selves, and they saw this as a light at the end of
    the tunnel.  I wish I could remember the President's actual phrase,
    however, I do not believe he specifically asked children to spy
    on their 'parents' but on EVERYONE, and to TELL the police of what
    they witness.
    
    I did not get the impression AT ALL that these children were spying
    on their parents.  For goodness sakes these children are 'living'
    in these homes where a substantial amount of trafficking was going
    on.  Our children are not stupid, just victims.  I also do not feel
    that the President was "rewarding" the child, but sending him a
    message which probably should have been on White House stationary.
    Maybe our children identify so well with pictures, videos etc.,
    that the President felt it more appropriate to communicate with
    this child in this manner.
    
    The 10 year old (who was mentioned earlier) who turned in his 
    mother is heartbroken; very intelligent; but also admitted that
    "he could not live like that anymore".  It was very well known that
    the mother had been dealing for a number of years, however, the
    police could never get enough evidence in order to convict her.
     The child felt awful, but admitted that it was the only thing he
    could possibly do in order to HELP HER come clean.
    
    It it terribly sad that our world has come to this.  I agree that
    this child will live with this guilt for years.  But what was his
    alternative?  He is not an adult who could foresee the consequenses
    of his actions; he could not seek out alternate plans; he was only
    a miserable little boy who needed OUT of his hell hole.
    
    So easy for us to sit here at our Digital desks, judging a President
    and a nation of children who are fighting the WAR ON DRUGS.  Do
    you know how much evidence is needed in order to prosecute such
    a case?  Do you know how long it can last in court?  Do you know
    how many lawyers get very, very rich on getting the GUILTY OFF?
     If not, where in God's name have you been?
    
    WHAT HAVE WE DONE LATELY OURSELVES TO PUT A STOP to the incredible
    amount of drugs that are entering our schools everyday?  Maybe if
    our children fight this war they can teach us a thing or two.  Maybe
    we should listen and learn rather then sit and accuse.
    
    ES

    
    i believe that the so-called 'war on drugs' is a war on various
    latin american countries and a war on our civil liberties.
    

    In Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia children were encouraged to inform
    on their parents for a variety of crimes. But of course that has no
    relationship to anything happening here. Mandatory drug testing has
    nothing to do with:
    
    	"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    	papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
    	shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
    	cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
    	the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    
    because, after all, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing
    to worry about...
    
    Time to increase my contribution to the ACLU...
    
    	-- Charles

    
    Well, the powers that be (Adm Crowe, Bill Bennett, former 
    Customs Commissioner von Raab,Sen. Wilson, Kerry, Rangel) 
    think that a little less protection in these areas is ok 
    because it furthers the WoD.
    
    If you don't happen to agree, well then, your name will be
    added to the list of troublemakers..    
    
    You don't want that, do you?
    
    

    Rob Holt
    
    Are you threatening me?  If so . . . . . . . .
    
    Right to my opinion too!!!!!!
    
    

    
    I also had a chance to watch the show being discussed.  The boy that
    turned in his mother had good reason.  However, she was a dealer!
    This kid was old enough to understand what his mother was doing.
    She was not only using the stuff, but she was dealing it out to
    others while he was in the house.
    
    I beleive that he did the right thing in his case.  But he had
    another parent to take care of him.  His parents were divorced,
    but they were both available to him.  This is simply not the
    case in many situations.  There are many kids being raised
    in single parent households.  Where are these kids going to go
    if they turn in the one parent they know?  It would be far
    worse to have them go into the Social Services merrygoround.
    
    
    I just dont think that you would have any child being brought
    up in a single parent situation that would jeapordized their
    relationship with the only parent they know.  As a product
    of a single parent household, I know that I would not have
    done anything to risk losing my mom.  She was the only parent
    I had left and I was not going to lose her to anyone or anything.
    She went through a couple of years where she started to drink
    heavily.  We did all we could to get her to stop, but she had
    to come to that decision on her own which she did.  Yes we
    did suffer during those years, but she was still available to us.
    And thankfully she is dry today and still a wonderful mom.
    
    
    If the president wants little kids to turn in their parents,
    he had damn well be prepared to offer those kids a safe, stable
    loving environment and counselling to deal with the pain they
    will feel being separated (possibly permanently) from the
    parent(s) they know and love!!!!!!!!!!!   Is this possible?
    Not in the social service world of today!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Michele

    I was just wondering how many here would condem a child for turning
    in a parent for abuse or neglect.  Because in a household where 
    drugs are being used heavily that is exactly what is going on.
    
    The thing about the drug problem that bothers me the most is that,
    if what I see and read is true about the drug problem, a full 10% of
    the children being born in America are being born deformed and/or
    mentaly impaired in some way because their mothers use drugs or
    alcohol during pregnancy.  People who are adicted to drugs and
    alcohol can't NOT do what they are doing, and without some outside
    intervention are not likely to stop.  Over 97% of all alcoholics
    DIE!!  They do not stop on their own.  They do not seek help on
    their own.  They DIE!  Many of the mothers who are doing drugs
    KNOW what they are doing and they CAN'T stop, even for the sake 
    of their unborn child.
    
    If someone was standing on the edge of a cliff with a strong wind
    trying to blow them over, would you not do something to try and
    help them even if they fought against that help?  If a pharmaceutical
    compay was putting out a vitamin that would make you feel good but
    would cause 10% of the children in America to be born mentally
    deformed, would you not try to stop it?  If the U.S.S.R. was spraying
    our country with some chemical that would cause 10% of our children
    to be defomred what would we do?  We just had Earth Day to try to stop 
    polution.  Is ANY other form of polution causing 10% of our children 
    to be born deformed?
    
    I'm sorry people, but I can't undersand all this talk about CHOICES.
    People who are taking drugs may have chosen to take them the first
    few times, but now they have NO choice.  They are ADICTED.  They
    CAN'T stop taking drugs any more than they can stop eating, or 
    breathing, or drinking water.  A child truning in their parent
    may be doing the only thing left to do for the person they love.
    
    fred();

>Over 97% of all alcoholics DIE!! 

 Um, 100% of alcoholics die. 100% of nonalcoholics die.

 The Doctah

    Re. .38  
    
    Yes, but alcohilics die of alcoholism, and a lot sooner than most
    nonalcoholics.
    
    I must say Mark, that I am disappointed that you of all people
    can be so flippant about so serious a subject.  (draw disappointed
    face here).
    
    fred();

    re: .39
    
    Actually, not all alcoholics die of alcohol related problems.  There
    are many alcoholics out there who no longer drink, but yet they are
    alcoholics.  
    
    Mike

 well, fred, your numbers (97% of all alcoholics die) were meaningless and 
unsubstantiated. There is no way you'll ever prove that 97% of alcoholics die
of alcohol related causes, because it isn't true. If you consider this such a 
serious subject (which I do) please get accurate data with which to 
substantiate your arguments.

 The Doctah

    re .41.
    
    A few years ago, for reasons that I will not go into here, I became
    involved with Al-Anon.   AA is one of the most, if not the most,
    successful alcoholic treatment programs there is.  Even AA only
    claims a 3% success rate ( never drinks again ).  Another larger
    percentage will achieve some level of sobriety over some period 
    of time, but their death will most likely be caused by some condition
    brought on, or aggrivated by, alcohol. (I don't remember the exact numbers 
    for these, something under 20% total, but the 3% sticks in my mind).  
    Alcoholism is a "family" disease.  The alocholic affects not only
    his own life, but the lives of his family and virtually every other
    life that he comes in contact with to one degree or another.
    
    I could go down and get the exact stats if you'd like, but looks like
    they're fixing to lock up WN.
    fred();

    Well, all this is fine and dandy but the prez didn't ask kids to turn
    in their parents for drinking or abuse. Besides, how many folks who get
    turned in get treated? I imagine most just go to jail and make new
    contacts. And for that matter why doesn't he ask women who are abused
    by their husbands to turn them in? And then DO something when they do.

    We are at risk for losing our rights as free citizens. The governments
    of the world have shown us time and again that and inch is a good as a
    mile when they start to invade our privacy.

    For the person who thought Mr Holt was threatening them, get real. He
    was only telling the truth. Haven't you seen the evidence that has been
    brought out about this sort of thing since we got the freedom of
    information act? You can get on a suspect list by just parking your car
    on the street of a person they are watching.

    And anybody who thinks the DSS takes good care of kids is living in a
    dream world. liesl

     
    
    re 97% of alcoholics die
    
    
    Everyone dies regardless of whether or not they are addicted.
    
    My dad died of pneumonia (sp?).  He was an alcoholic and his
    body was just not able to fight off the virus.  So he died.
    They listed his death as "complications due to alcoholism".
    
    Also as was stated before, recovering alcoholics are still
    alcoholics.  So when they die, they are dead alcoholics,
    not dead recovering alcoholics.  Kind of strange how the
    hospitals work isnt it?
    
    AA's success rate is the rate of recovering alcoholics that never
    touch another drink in their lifetime.  That in and of itself
    is a small percentage of recovering alcoholics.  My mom is one
    of those folks, but there are many folks in my family and
    several friends family's that are recovering alcoholics that
    have an occasional beer or wine with dinner.  They can handle
    the one drink thing, but due to the fact that they take a drink
    they are no longer defined as recovering alcoholics.  They are
    then defined as alcoholics.  It all depends on the definitions.
    
    

    in re .42
    
    We aren't fixing to lock up WN just this version. Infact we've
    had a volunteer to move this topic to the new file.
    
    Bonnie