Based on a comment on a previous post by a regular and respected reader I decided that I need to clarify my position on the whole Texas FLDS thing.

I believe that Mormonism as practiced by the FLDS is all about male domination, power and sex, just like I believe that Islam as practiced by its radical elements is all about male domination, power and sex. I believe that clear instances of abuse should be punished, but when we ditch the constitution in order to right what some in government feel is wrong we are stepping out on a very dangerous slippery slope. I fear the unbound power of government more than I fear fringe religious elements.

If there is one family caught in the wide net cast by the Texas officials that can show they were in no way involved in illegal practices and that there was no probable cause for search and seizure, I hope they sue to the full extent of the law. If there are a hundred such families I hope they all sue.

What Texas should have done when they received the telephone complaint from the young woman was to get a warrant from a judge and go out to the compound and conduct an investigation. If the sect leaders refused to cooperate the authorities should have taken the steps provided by law to force them to cooperate or go to jail. If this process produced clear evidence of abuse, those instances of abuse should have been prosecuted. All other parents and children should have been left to continue their lives as they see fit, as long as it is within the law.

Some have said that if one child was saved from abuse the actions of the Texas officials are justified. This is an absurd argument. Absolutes in a complex social system are unattainable. The FLDS children are being placed in foster-care. Texas cannot guarantee that none of them will be abused. We sacrifice children in accidents because we won’t give up our freedom to travel. We may have to sacrifice children to retain our constitutional rights.

The reader says to ask those who have escaped or been cast out of the FLDS. That is a very good suggestion. Why has their testimony not been used to investigate and prosecute the offenders in the sect? Perhaps it has in some cases. I seem to remember that this might have been a factor in the Warren Jeffs case. But why have we not heard of a lot more of these cases. Could it be that no clear evidence of abuse is found in many of the cases?  Or that the escapees or cast-offs won’t cooperate?

This affair smells to me like a bunch of self-righteous do-gooders getting a bit overwrought over some beliefs and practices that are not like theirs. Neither do I have any clear evidence of that, but I’m not going to go out with armored vehicles and force them into my custody.

I believe that any religion that seeks to force its will on people is despicable. I also believe that a government that unlawfully seeks to force its will on people is despicable and more dangerous (at this time).

Having said all this, I’m willing to admit that I’m wrong about this particular case if Texas proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all the affected parents are guilty of placing their children in imminent danger of physical abuse.

It seems that the ability to apply a little common sense is severely lacking in this country. A couple of days ago an airline prevented an eight-year-old boy from flying home because his very common name was on the TSA’s no-fly list. Yesterday Michael Fekete was arrested in Massachusetts for “stuffing” his two young daughters into the trunk of his car. Read the AP report here and watch the MyFoxBoston.com video here.

Creates a horrible image in your mind doesn’t it? A father stuffing his nine- and eleven-year-old daughters in the trunk, slamming the lid shut and driving off in 90 degree heat. Except that it didn’t happen that way. Fekete says that it was just a game. He says that the girls were curious about whether the light in the trunk turns off when the lid is closed and wanted to get inside to find out. The girls crawled inside on their own and he held the lid closed without locking it for a few seconds and then let them out. A witness, probably the one that called the cops, admitted that after closing the lid on the children he let them out and put them in the back seat.

But because of this harmless little experiment the children were taken from Fekete and he has to appear in court in Massachusetts. What is this world coming to? What kind of person calls the police over an incident like this? Parents now must watch their backs anytime they appear in public with their children. They can’t just depend on their own judgment, they have to consider the judgment of all those around them.

What law was broken that allowed the police to arrest Fekete? Probably child endangerment — another of those laws that mean whatever the ‘authorities’ want it to mean at any given time. Is transporting the children in a car from Washington DC to Massachusetts not child endangerment?

Why didn’t the policeman on the scene just let Fekete go after seeing how harmless the incident was? Probably to cover his ass. The person who reported the incident would most likely make trouble for him if he didn’t make an arrest.

We are headed toward a nanny state. Not only does government want to look after you, it wants to raise your children too. How long will it be before every parent has to periodically deliver their children to some ‘authority’ for an evaluation of their progress and the parents’ child-rearing abilities? How long before ‘authorities’ will periodically examine your home to see if it meets their standards? I’m sure Mr Fekete will be subjected to that for several years now.

How long before our free an open society is in the toilet?

I returned home yesterday from a 1500 mile road trip to Dallas. One of my wife’s relatives got married there on Saturday. The trip went well except for one thing: I learned that I can’t depend on hotel lobby computers for e-mail and blogging. I suppose I’ll have to give in and get a laptop (I hate laptops).

We stayed in a very nice Marriott Courtyard. They have two computers in the lobby for laptopless guests like me to use. I had a little time between wedding events so I thought I would do a little blogging. I typed in the URL for my blog and hit the Enter key. But, instead of seeing my familiar home page I got a message box saying that my site was blocked. It didn’t like the word ‘hatemongers’ in my blogroll. Thanks to the “crack young staff” of Hatemongers Quarterly I am banned in Dallas (at least I’m banned at the Marriott Courtyard).

Message to the creators of site blocking software: It’s not the word ‘hatemongers’ that’s bad, it’s the hatemongers and the practice of mongering hate. Would you ban the word ‘racists’ because racists are generally bad people? Would you ban the word ‘killers’ because killers are generally bad people? Would you block an opinion piece at a major news site because it describes fringe elements on the political left or right as hatemongers? Are you an imbecile?

The only justification I can imagine for having site blocking software on computers is to prevent young children from viewing inappropriate material. But, how many children check in to hotels without being accompanied by adults?

In another hotel the lobby computer didn’t choke on the word ‘hatemongers’, but it wouldn’t allow me to send an e-mail message. All I could do was read my messages. I think it was because it lacked some version of Java.

As I said above, I may have to break down and get a laptop — or just quit traveling.

I’m no great fan of Don Imus or his show. But I do occasionally watch a few minutes of it for much the same reason that I watch Donald Trump’s show: clowns can be entertaining.

How anyone can take seriously anything that Imus says is beyond my comprehension. His show has always been about disparaging people. He routinely has friendly conversations with politicians and reporters on the phone and then insults them after they hang up. Calling members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos” was a stupid thing to do, but doing and saying stupid things is his trademark. What made this stupid remark different is that the race hustlers were apparently short on ambulances to chase. Sharpton and Jackson jumped on it like buzzards on road-kill.

The term that Imus used comes from blacks. It is indiscriminately used by rappers to refer to black women in general. The only difference that I can see between Imus and rappers is that Imus applied the term to a specific group of women that he had no reason to believe are whores. The idea that it is alright for blacks, but not whites, to use terms like “nappy-headed hos” and “niggas” is absurd.

The concept of an exclusive “black community” that I’ve heard mentioned a lot this week is more racist to me than Imus’ stupid remark. On one talk show black guests insisted that problems like Imus’ remark had to be handled by the black community and that whites should stay out of it. Imagine the outcry if a white person suggested that blacks should move aside and let us white folks deal with our problems. Further, how does this black community alone expect to deal with a problem that obviously involves whites? Clearly, what the black guests really meant is that they don’t want any dissent from whites, just acquiescence.

The best way to handle an incident like this is to let the free market decide. Instances of forced viewing of radio and television shows are rare. The only time I listen to rap music is when I hear it from a car next to me at a traffic light. Most individuals are free to tune in or not to tune in. If you don’t like what is being said or shown just don’t listen or watch. Choose another program or read a book. If you don’t like the music don’t buy the CD. If enough people don’t listen or watch the show will eventually go away. If enough people don’t buy the CDs the music will go away.

Of course the corporation airing the show and its sponsors are free to make market decisions too. In this case MSNBC and the sponsors have chosen to cancel the television show. I would have preferred that they wait and let the viewers decide but it is their decision to make. I hope their decision was market based and not just caving to the race extortionists.

Yesterday I wrote about how majority rule might not always be in our best interest. Today I have a real-life example here in my local area. Twenty-five years ago South Walton County was lightly developed, even along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. That was about the time that Janet Reeves and Dave Hillgenberg opened their businesses on US Highway 98. Reeves operates a gift shop and Hillgenberg operates a glass and mirror service.

Fast-forward to today and you find a thriving retirement and tourist community of hotels, resorts, restaurants, condominiums, vacation homes and supporting businesses — most of them along US Highway 98. Since South Walton had ‘progressed’ from mostly pine forests and sand to an upscale community where many of the homes are priced in the millions, the majority of the new residents decided that businesses should abide by certain standards of appearance. This majority also decided that these standards of appearance would be retroactive — that no exceptions would be made for small businesses like those of Reeves and Hillgenberg. Never mind that the new standards would place a serious burden on their bottom line.

One could argue that the intent of such standards is just that: to drive businesses that don’t measure up out of business. The tax structure already achieves that end — intentional or not. As property values increase, property taxes increase, and at some point some types of low volume businesses are unable to generate a profit. The proprietors are then forced to sell to a more profitable business. And they can’t always depend on getting what their property is really worth. For example, it might be a very small piece of property sandwiched between two much larger properties. If neither of the adjoining businesses want it, who else is going to buy it?

Anyway, back to Janet and Dave. They sued the county arguing that the “scenic corridor guidelines designed to give the area a uniform look” should not apply to them. They lost. A federal judge said neither Reeves nor Hillgenberg had enough evidence to make their case. The judge apparently believes that their businesses can be sacrificed in order to give the area a uniform look. Since when is a ‘uniform look’ a valid public interest?

Yes, Reeves and Hillgenberg probably could have made the required changes in the appearance of their businesses for the money they spent on the suit, but I applaud them for not doing so. What will this country be like in fifty years if everyone caves to the tyranny of the majority? How long before Starbucks wants your house?

In America we are moving slowly but surely from ‘freedom reigns’ to ‘freedom wanes.’ When my father was a young boy many people existed outside the government’s purview. Births and marriages were recorded in family bibles. Unless people owned land they paid no taxes. They conducted their lives pretty much as they saw fit. Things have changed a lot in almost a century. And it’s getting worse as each year passes. Today we can hardly turn around without first getting permission from the government. What we have today are different degrees of lack of freedom. Let me enumerate some of the ways in which we lack freedom. You are not free when:

• The government can take your property and transfer it to someone else without your permission and without just compensation (market value after property has been marked for condemnation is not real market value).
• The government can deny your desired use of your property with no compensation by reserving it for the use of ‘endangered’ plant and animal species.
• You can’t subdivide your property and sell it to others for home sites without government permission.
• You can’t construct a dam on a stream to create a lake on your property without government permission.
• You can’t drill a well to provide water for you and your family without government permission.
• You can’t install a septic tank to handle your home’s waste without government permission.
• You can’t build a home or place of business without government permission.
• You can’t repair or make an addition to your home or place of business without government permission.
• You can’t install a sign in front of your place of business without government permission.
• You can’t own a motor vehicle or boat without registering it with the government.
• You can’t operate a motor vehicle without government permission.
• You can’t operate a business without government permission.
• You can’t go fishing or hunting without government permission.
• You can’t get married without government permission.
• You can’t get a job without a government issued identification number.
• You have no choice but to enroll in and pay for Social Security and Medicare.
• You can’t possess a gun with which to protect your family without government permission (in some places).
• The government can raid your home without your permission and unannounced.
• You can’t discipline your children for fear of being charged with child abuse.
• You can’t freely speak your mind for fear of being labeled.
• You can’t transfer wealth to your children without government involvement.
• Your property is taxed to pay for the public school system even though you pay to send your children to a private school.
• If you send your children to public school you have little or no control over the curriculum.
• You are taxed to pay for government programs that you find morally repugnant.
• You must inform the government each year of the amount of your earnings and send a big chunk of it to the government (much of it to be used to devise more ways to make you less free).

Sadly, governments are hard at work concocting new ‘progressive’ ideas for supposedly improving our lives, and most of these will result in further restricting our personal freedom. One of these is the move to dictate what we can and cannot eat. New York City is now considering banning foods that contain ‘trans fats’ in city restaurants.

Obviously, reasonable arguments can be made that some of the above restrictions on our freedom are necessary in a complex society — especially in light of the threats to our security from radical elements here and abroad. But this does not change the fact that our freedom is waning.

Despite all this, I still believe that we enjoy more freedom in conducting our lives here in America than we would in most any other country. But it could be better.