Climb aboard The Tejas, a civil-rights rollercoaster constructed on a
daily basis from the remnants of the American Revolution.
First, the long haul up the hill: the Texas Supreme Court ruled today that the state's Child
Protective Services overspent its authority allowance when it grabbed 400+ kids from the
Yearning for Zion FLDS colony in Eldorado, Texas, agreeing with the
appeals court that removing kids from their home is the most extreme
solution, and the state had failed to exhaust its many other options
under the law. The likely virtual enslavement of young women in the
Warren Jeffs' sect still needs to be addressed, but today's rulings
confirm that it'll have to happen under the color of the constitution. Iconoclastic, cliquish parents
everywhere should rejoice. The story isn't over mind you, CPS will just
have to actually build individual cases.
Then, the short drop: District 4 Councilman Philip Cortez unveiled a
$50,000 expanded internet policing system at the public libraries that
will shut down the one-half of one percent of you that were turning
Japanese with the visual stimulation of the SAPL computers. The library
folks assert, and the daily mindlessly repeats, that the methods -- a
warning, followed by disconnection -- skirt First Amendment issues. So,
we gather, if you have the option to surrender your First Amendment
rights before the plug is pulled, no foul? I remain unconvinced, but
I'll check back in with you tomorrow after I go to the library to
research sexual slavery and blow-up dolls.
And the long fall: DA Susan Reed, police state envelope-pusher, was
triumphal in her evaluation of Memorial Day weekend mandatory
blood tests. No refusing the breathalyzer; a "warrant"
obtained on the quick ensured that your blood could be drawn and tested
against your will. More on the dubious legality of that later (the
article notes that the TX Court of Criminal Appeals has approved the
use of warrants to coerce blood samples from suspected drunken drivers,
but as a defense attorny points out to the X-News, a warrant
and a rubber stamp are not the same thing).
To rub salt in the wound, the daily published
the name of a schoolteacher (who sounds like she's maybe
having a rough personal time) who was pulled over, appeared
inebriated, "refused to give a breath sample," and was forcibly tested.
But, if we read the article correctly, the results weren't back before
the article was published. No matter; her name appeared, along with her
subsequent discipline at the hands of the school district (which
alleges she showed up "seemingly intoxicated," and was issued a
citation for public intoxication). Is the woman not entitled
to some privacy until and if she's actually convicted?