Legal challenges to the raid on the FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas are starting to pile up. MSNBC and AP report:

The state of Texas made a damning accusation when it rounded up 462 children at a polygamous sect’s ranch: The adults are forcing teenage girls into marriage and sex, creating a culture so poisonous that none should be allowed to keep their children.

But the broad sweep — from nursing infants to teenagers — is raising constitutional questions, even in a state where authorities have wide latitude for taking a family’s children.

I believe that before this is over it will deal a severe blow to aggressive child protection agencies across the country. I don’t mind the government taking custody of children that are clearly being abused, but taking them when there is merely potential for abuse is a bit over the top. And there’s the question about what kind of care the children will get in foster homes. Just a few years ago there was a case in Florida where a foster parent of about a dozen children essentially had them enslaved and imprisoned in her home.

Up until about 70 years ago it was not unusual for 15-17 year-old girls to marry. And some of them weren’t shotgun weddings. One of my relatives married at 15. I know someone whose mother married at 14. My wife and I got married in 1961 when she was 18. I don’t have the statistics at hand (and I’m too lazy to look them up) but I’ve read that a large percentage of 16-year-old American girls have had sex, and practically none of them belong to the FLDS sect. None of this though is an argument that it is acceptable to force teenage girls into marriage and a sexual relationship.

On another note, I’m curious about the outcome of the DNA testing that the court in Texas has ordered for all the children in their custody. One of the reasons given for the testing is that the children aren’t forthcoming with information about their identities and parentage. In other words they can’t depend on the children to tell the authorities who they really are. My question is this: Are the Texas authorities going to brand each of the children as they are tested. Are they going to tattoo a number on their wrist? Are they going to depend on photographs or that the children will give their correct names? If not, how then will they match a set of test results with a child when the analysis is complete? Do they expect that the children will suddenly become cooperative?

Related post: Government Overzealousness in Texas — Again

In Texas, do they arrest every man in town when an anonymous caller claims she was beaten and raped by her husband? Or round up all the women in town and place them in protective custody? I think not. Do they collect all the children in town based on a tip that one has been physically abused? Well, probably not — yet. But that is essentially what the Texas government did at the FLDS compound in Eldorado.

I’m going on record. The FLDS raid will blow up in the Texas Child Protective Service’s face like the Waco raid did in Janet Reno’s face — but maybe not literally this time.

It’s not apparent that they have any real specific evidence of abuse other than the existence of pregnant teenage girls. But what town can you go to in this country and not be able to find pregnant teenage girls? Even if the authorities are holding some evidence, what is the likelihood that it applies to every child (or adult) in the compound?

The state took custody of all the toddlers. Did they think the toddlers were in imminent danger of being taken to the (spiritual) marriage bed? The state took custody of all the boys. Did they think the boys were any more likely to be abused than any other boy in the state? (I’d be surprised if the FLDS tolerates homosexuals.) Did they justify taking them because they thought the boys were being trained to become abusers?  If so, a raid on any church in the state that, for example, teaches boys that they will be the head of their households and that a woman’s place is in the home is not that far away.

How can Texas apply such a broad brush to this problem without violating the individual constitutional rights of the children and their parents? I can see that Texas had the right to investigate the call from the 16-year-old girl. But even if they found some evidence of abuse of specific children during the investigation, I don’t see how they could legally take children that weren’t being abused. I see lots of law suits coming.

Don’t get me wrong. I have little sympathy for the adult members of that cult. I’m thinking about all those little children who have been torn away from their parents. I don’t believe the stories about the kids not knowing who their parents are. They’ve been taught to keep details of their lives secret. Anyway, if what we hear in the news is correct, kids not knowing their daddies is becoming the norm across the country.

Update: This has happened before, and it turned out pretty much like I’m thinking this incident will. Read CNN’s account of a similar raid in 1953.

An e-mail from Senator Mel Martinez contained these statements:

Senator Martinez called for more assistance to the aerospace industry in response to NASA’s estimate of job losses at Kennedy Space Center. “The aerospace industry is critical for our state and our country,” said Senator Martinez. “There is no simple fix to this problem, but we know where to focus our efforts. We need to accelerate the Orion and Ares programs, we need to foster a competitive environment for commercial space operations, and we need to assist the individuals and businesses affected by the transition. The aerospace industry is critical for our state and our country. This is more than a huge economic threat to our region; there is the real potential for a larger loss of human capital for our country at a time when we can’t afford to lose those who’ve dedicated their lives to specializing in engineering and science.”

Notice that he called for more assistance, implying that the aerospace industry is already being subsidized by the government. I know that a large segment of the aerospace industry derives most, if not all, its revenue from the government through defense and space programs, but I was not aware of direct subsidies.

If a supposedly conservative senator believes that engineers and scientists are in need of welfare he must have little confidence in them or our country. I say let the aerospace industry survive or fail on its own. If it fails the scientists and engineers can find or start another industry. Such resources should flow toward current needs, not be artificially sustained in an industry for which there is weakening or no demand.

If we continue down this slippery slope of propping up every troubled industry and individual who has made bad decisions, the last vestiges of our free market will vanish and we will be left with a socialized government and economy. This is a stated goal of Senator Obama but I wouldn’t expect it from a Republican senator.

Get ready for the next huge scam — like that of ethanol — to be perpetrated on the American people. Why do I know it’s a scam? Because it has to be forced on us by an Act of Congress. Congress forced ethanol on us and now they are about to force CFLs on us. If CFLs or ethanol are as great as they are claimed to be why wouldn’t the free market usher them into universal usage? The truth is that they aren’t as great as the claims.

USA Today reports on a bill now being pushed through the Senate that President Bush has said he will sign. It sets a timetable for phasing in energy savings in light bulbs. Comparing fluorescent and incandescent bulb energy costs, it says that a fluorescent bulb “saves about $5 a year in electricity costs, paying for itself in as little as four months.”

Although they don’t say so, apparently that claim is based on burning the bulbs constantly for a year. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense. Its obvious that a bulb that’s only on for two hours a year is not going to save $5 a year in power costs. The lights in my boathouse are turned on about once a month and only stay on about 10 minutes each time. The lights in my detached garage aren’t on much longer. But Congress is going to force me to pay four times as much for these bulbs in order to save maybe about two cents a year in energy costs.

I tried CFLs and found two deficiencies so far. They don’t last as long as claimed and they don’t work too well outdoors on cold nights. And there’s the disposal issue. We aren’t supposed to just throw them in the trash because they contain mercury. Does this mean we have to get another recycle basket and have another big truck lumbering down our street each week?

How long before Congress tells us what color to paint our walls? After all, a room with white walls doesn’t need as much light wattage as the same room with darker walls.

Update: A commenter has pointed out that new problems with CFLs have surfaced. Some people with certain skin sensitivities have found that fluorescent light exacerbates the condition. And it has been found that the CFLs can cause migraines and increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy. See the comments for a link to a BBC article.

Yep, the nanny state is on the job; it saved me from myself today. I ventured out with reckless abandon (at least I learned later that it was with reckless abandon) this morning on a trip to the local Lowe’s Home Improvement store to purchase a couple of doors for the new garage I’m building. But that’s not the reckless part; the reckless part was that I intended to purchase and install doors with those nice sunset style windows across the top. But that is not going to happen. The Lowe’s clerk informed me that the state doesn’t allow them to sell garage doors with windows, and the state doesn’t allow me to install them. Silly me. I thought that how I decorated my garage doors would be pretty much up to me and my wife.

Why am I not allowed to have windows in my garage doors? Because I live in a designated 130-140 mph hurricane wind zone. I live about 25 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico in Northwest Florida. Some bureaucrat has decided that it’s too dangerous for me to have the windows. Never mind that in my 67 year lifetime there have never been hurricane winds of more than about 110 mph where I live. Never mind that my garage is not even attached to my house. Never mind that no one is going to seek refuge in my garage during a hurricane. Never mind that well over half the garage doors in my town have windows. Never mind that it is alright with the state if I don’t even put doors on my garage. Never mind that it is alright with the state if people build carports with no walls. Never mind that it is alright with the state if I climb to the top of a tall tree to ride out a hurricane. Somehow the state has decided that it is just too risky for me to have that attractive row of windows across the top of my garage doors.

I tried to figure out the lobbying angle with this prohibition. Most building restrictions result from some trade group or company lobbying the legislature or the bureaucrats for rulings that will benefit them. But it’s not clear how that would play here; garage doors without windows cost less than doors with windows. I suppose it could be the insurance industry wanting to avoid some window replacement costs.

It irritates me that after every disaster the media sing the same tired old refrain: If the government had been more involved and had spent more money this wouldn’t have happened. We’re hearing it now in regard to the Minnesota bridge collapse and the Utah mine cave-in. They seem to believe that no cost should be spared when it comes to public safety. They don’t seem to understand that ’safety at any cost’ is just a slogan. But any reasonably intelligent engineer or bureaucrat knows that safety has to be balanced against cost and functionality. Wouldn’t surface travel be a lot safer if everyone had their own highway? Couldn’t all bridge collapses be avoided if no bridges were ever built?

An AP article discussing the decisions made by authorities on maintenance of the bridge contains this statement:

The inspection strategy was also deemed to be more cost effective, but (senior engineer Gary) Peterson and state bridge engineer Dan Dorgan denied that money played a role.

If money played no role, the inspection strategy could not be deemed the more cost effective approach. ‘Cost effective’ is a fancy term for ‘the most bang for your bucks’ or, more formally, the right balance of cost and effectiveness — where effectiveness includes safety and functionality. That is, if an approach is deemed the more cost effective, cost had to be considered by definition. Peterson and Dorgan were obviously pandering to the media; they have to know that money always plays a role.

Not only bureaucrats, but users of public transportation infrastructure discount the importance of safety every day. Consider this scenario: Bureaucrats inspect a bridge and find it structurally unsound. Instead of closing the bridge they publicly disclose that it is unsafe and that those who continue to cross it do so at their own risk. They post overhead signs advising motorists to exit now to avoid crossing the unsafe bridge.

Here’s what I think will happen: Traffic across the bridge will decline dramatically and increase dramatically along alternative routes in the short term. Then motorists will gradually return to the unsafe bridge to avoid delays along the alternative routes. Traffic across the unsafe bridge will eventually stabilize at a level somewhat lower than before it was found to be unsafe.

People who regularly travel along I-10 in Northwest Florida have experienced a similar scenario since hurricane Ivan washed out the bridge across the bay at Pensacola. The washed out eastbound span was temporarily repaired while a new span was being built. People continued to cross the temporary span although it was clearly not as safe as some alternative routes (some trucks were not allowed to cross and low speed limits were imposed).

People will accept some risk in order to save travel time and money — like they also do in almost every aspect of their lives. And it is absurd to not recognize that bureaucrats must weigh the cost of safety considerations in the construction and maintenance of the nation’s infrastructure.

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?