March 12, 2008
Screwing America's Young
Well, I know how to fix this. Let's focus on the how-to of "safe sex," destigmatize lascivious behavior, increase access to the abortive undo, remove pressure toward (indeed undermine the culture of) marriage, and attack anybody who voices opinions fitting the 1960s radical's definition of repressive:
About 1 in 4 teenage girls in the United States -- and nearly half of black girls -- has at least one sexually transmitted disease, according to a study released Tuesday, providing the first national snapshot of infection rates among this age group.Those numbers translate into an estimated 3.2 million adolescent females infected with one of the four most common STDs -- many of whom may not even know they have a disease or that they are passing it to their sex partners.
"What we found is alarming," said Dr. Sara Forhan, a researcher with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the study's lead author. "This means that far too many young women are at risk for the serious health effects of untreated STDs, including infertility and cervical cancer."
Sadly, the progressives may have just discovered another government program in need of funding and another victim group to pander to.
I doubt any lefties will be out front on condemning the behaviors that resulted in these findings.
Posted by: Frank at March 12, 2008 6:50 PMAnother liberal social experiment proves toxic to the young . . .
If the cause of these diseases were skateboards, or trans-fats, there would be a massive liberal movement to ban skateboards or trans-fats.
Because it's about sex . . . well, we really can't impose our morality on others, can we?
Remarkably, I read somewhere that a Planned Parenthood spokesperson interpreted these findings as "proof" that abstinence does not solve this problem!
And, by the way, if one in four teen girls have STDs . . . what about the teen boys?
In a related story, the progressives turned oer 4 young boys to a sodomite "couple" and are now shocked-shocked I tell you- that the kids have been getting rectally romanced for the last 3 years.
Neighbors saw warning signs in foster parents charged with molestation
Bristol police released these mugshots of Raymond Grenier (left) and Sedonio Rodriques (right).
BRISTOL — Neighbors of two Bristol foster parents arrested late last month on multiple molestation and attempted molestation charges claim they saw warning signs at the couple's 26 Sampson St. home for at least three years.
The men, Sedonio Rodriques, 57, and Raymond Grenier, 53, were arrested Friday, Feb. 22, and charged with 11 counts of child molestation and attempted molestation over a three-year span. The men, who before their arrest were foster parents licensed by the state Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), had four children: two adopted teenage siblings and two young boys they were fostering.
Following their parents' arrest, the children were taken away and placed in new homes, and both men are scheduled to appear in Sixth District Court in Providence on Monday, March 10. Until then, they are being held without bail at the Adult Correctional Institution (ACI) in Cranston; both declined the Phoenix's interview requests this week.
Long history
The men, who ran an Internet-based massage business out of their home, previously worked as bus drivers for the Bristol Warren Regional School District before being fired for undisclosed reasons last year. Police records show a long list of complaints centered around their modest mustard-colored home off Mt. Hope Avenue, from wayward children to family disputes and problems with neighbors (see below Timeline).
Neighbors who spoke this week said they were surprised to learn of the molestation charges, but said they long suspected something was wrong.
Belinda and Alan Dias, who live at 24 Sampson St., said they always thought something suspicious was going on next door. And Joseph Carosi, whose former Woodbine Street home overlooked the back and side yards of the Rodriques-Grenier house, said a group of neighbors often met to discuss what they could do, as they believed the couple's children were at risk. He said the kids were "psychologically whipped," could not look at or talk to anyone and were worked "like dogs."
"They couldn't have any friends over, did all the wash, poured cement, cut the grass and cooked. They cried all the time and were sworn at. We heard yelling and slaps from inside the home and saw them being screamed at outside," Mr. Carosi said.
Mr. Carosi said his 19-year-old daughter used to baby-sit for the couple's adopted children when she was 13. He said she got yelled at and they told her she did a bad job for letting the kids watch television after 8 p.m.
"She always thought there were signs there," he said.
Mr. Carosi and his daughter, as well as the Diases and their son, who went to school at Kickemuit Middle with the oldest adopted boy, said they never saw any physical signs of abuse on the four children. However, both the Diases and Mr. Carosi said the kids were timid.
"If we knew what exactly was going on, we would've gone in and pulled the kids out ourselves," Mr. Dias said.
Authorities contacted
Mr. Carosi said he has raised concerns for about three years, but nothing was ever done. And though Bristol police said they have no record of neighborhood complaints alleging mistreatment of children by the men, Mr. Carosi said he and other neighbors called to complain but were "blown off."
Bristol police reports for 26 Sampson St. over the last three years show no such neighbor complaints. All calls associated with that address were initiated by Mr. Rodriques or Mr. Grenier, said Bristol Police Lt. Nick Guercia.
Lt. Guercia said before DCYF took action last November, police never found indications that would have justified child molestation charges. He said disobedient child calls and false alarms are common.
"Neighbors usually know a lot more than we do, because they're the eyes and ears of the neighborhood," he said. "They need to pick up the phone and call us when they see something suspicious."
"Most people are reluctant to get involved in situations that don't directly involve them," he added.
The investigation
DCYF deputy director Jorge Garcia said his agency's investigation of Mr. Rodriques and Mr. Grenier started after officials received a tip on Nov. 30, 2007. The same day they received the tip, DCYF investigators went to the Rodriques-Grenier home and took custody of the four children.
DCYF and Bristol police then teamed on a three-month investigation that led to Mr. Rodriques' and Mr. Grenier's arrests on Feb. 22.
"This is an extremely rare situation, especially with same-sex foster parents," Mr. Garcia said. "We have a checks and balances system to verify the background of individuals who wish to adopt or become foster parents. There was nothing we had identified to suggest this outcome would have happened."
Lt. Guercia said the charges are mainly based on testimonies from one eye-witness and one alleged victim. He said interviews conducted by Bristol police, DCYF and officials from the Rhode Island Attorney General's office were spaced out through Feb. 15, in order to help prevent the children from being traumatized.
After their arrests, Mr. Rodriques' and Mr. Grenier's licenses were revoked, and Mr. Garcia said they can no longer work at child caring facilities.
Work history
At the time of their arrest, the two men apparently ran an explicit massage business. Their website, www.4handedhottttt.com, offered erotic massage geared toward male customers. According to the website, the couple ran the business out of their home and offered "four-handed massage."
"The words themselves conjure up images of intense pleasure and unadulterated self-indulgence," the site reads. "It's one of those terms, like 'ménage à trios,' that causes eyebrows to cock suggestively and knowing smiles to be exchanged."
The site contains suggestive photos that depict four hands placed in various locations on naked male bodies.
Lt. Guercia said detectives are aware of the website. He said there will be no active investigation about the site, unless something new arises.
"The investigation so far shows no link to this site and the alleged crimes," he said.
Raymond Grenier and Sedonio Rodriques lived with two foster children and two adopted children at this 26 Sampson St. home.
When asked about the site a few days ago, Mr. Garcia said DCYF had never heard of it. "It looks like we'll have to look into it."
Until last year, both men were also employed as bus drivers in Bristol Warren schools, working for First Student, the district's busing contractor.
First Student spokeswoman Kimberly Mulcahy said both started with the company in 2001, but had no details about why their contracts were terminated last year.
"Students' safety is our top priority. Therefore all necessary state and national background checks" were completed before they were hired, she said.
Mr. Carosi said his two daughters used to ride the elementary and middle school bus driven by Mr. Grenier and monitored by Mr. Rodriques. He said students were constantly told to keep quiet and not move.
Mr. Garcia said DCYF has known that the men were fired from First Student. However, he said, their termination was not a factor in his agency's investigation.
The case: A timeline
Sept. 5, 2001
*Sedonio Rodriques and Raymond Grenier buy a house at 26 Sampson St. That same year, they earn their DCYF foster-care licenses. DCYF Deputy Director Jorge Garcia said these licenses, which are only good for one to two years, were never activated. Also that year, First Student, the company that provides transportation for students in the Bristol Warren Regional School District, hires the two as bus drivers.
Jan. 16, 2005
*Police respond to a 911 nuisance complaint from 26 Sampson St. of an unwanted person in the house.
Sept. 18, 2005
*Police respond to a panic alarm at 26 Sampson St. Reports are that it was accidental.
Sept. 9, 2006
*Police respond to a neighborhood dispute at 26 Sampson St.
February 2007
*First Student terminates Mr. Grenier's bus driver contract for undisclosed reasons.
March 2007
*First Student terminates Mr. Rodriques' contract for undisclosed reasons.
*After their first foster care licenses expire, Mr. Rodriques and Mr. Grenier earn new DCYF foster-care licenses after a four-month application process.
April 2007
*Mr. Rodriques and Mr. Grenier take in their first two foster children, both young boys.
Sept. 8, 2007
*According to Bristol Police Lt. Nicholas Guercia, Mr. Rodriques comes to police headquarters at 9 a.m. to report that both of his adopted children left the house after a verbal argument. Mr. Rodriques said he found the children downtown, but they refused to get into his car. He told police he thought they were going to the Gooding Library. After police checked the library, they received an anonymous phone call which led them to the children in the Leila Jean Drive area. Lt. Guercia said a patrolman picked them up, but the kids said they did not want to return home. He said Bristol police took the children back to headquarters and called the DCYF. Lt. Guercia said the children were returned home after noon, and DCYF sent an investigator to 26 Sampson St. the next day. No further Bristol police action was taken. Mr. Garcia said the DCYF took no action, and the results of that investigation played no role in the charges recently filed against the men.
Sept. 13, 2007
*Police respond to a reported accidental alarm and disobedient child claim. No problems were reported relative to the alarm; the child reportedly would not clean her room.
Oct. 16, 2007
*Mr. Rodriques reports his adopted son missing around 8 p.m. Lt. Guercia said officers speak with Mr. Rodriques, who said the child leaves all the time when he is upset that he cannot watch television. Lt. Guercia said Mr. Rodriques told officers his son usually walks around the area when he is upset. The child returned about half an hour later, while police were still at the house.
Nov. 19, 2007
*Police respond to a call from Mr. Rodriques that two of his children were disobedient. Lt. Guercia said Mr. Rodriques told police his children left after a verbal argument with him. Police searched the area and were informed about three hours later that the children had come home. No further police action was taken.
Nov. 30, 2007
*DCYF received a call from an undisclosed source who alleged wrongdoing in the house; there was reportedly enough evidence to prompt DCYF action. Soon after, DCYF officials went to 26 Sampson St. and took custody of four children ages 4 to 14. A DCYF investigation with the Bristol Police Department began and the men's foster-care licenses were suspended.
Feb. 22, 2008
*Mr. Rodriques and Mr. Grenier are arrested on 11 counts of child molestation and attempted molestation over a three-year span. They are held without bail at the ACI in Cranston, and their foster-care licenses are revoked. The men's two foster children are placed in DCYF custody, and the two adopted children were placed in another home.
March 10, 2008
*Mr. Rodriques and Mr. Grenier are due in Sixth District Court in Providence for a bail hearing.
How DCYF screening works
State Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) Deputy Director Jorge Garcia said Sedonio Rodriques and Raymond Grenier, the two men in Bristol charged with a host of molestation charges, first passed checks to become DCYF-licensed foster parents in 2001. He said their licenses, which expire after 1-2 years, were never activated. They were re-licensed in March 2007 and fostered their first two children in April 2007. Below are the criteria they passed to earn their licenses:
*A nationwide fingerprint-supported criminal background check, completed by the state
*A 30-day training and license program
*A medical reference to prove they are healthy enough to house children
*A social study of values, beliefs, philosophy, etc.
*A clearance of previous DCYF involvement
*A physical house space assessment
*A home fire inspection
*There were no work references, but contact information of their employment venue was supplied to DCYF. Mr. Garcia withheld the work contacts in the applications submitted by both men.
I gotta say, this one sticks in my craw.
Justin wants to blame everything on "1960s radicals". Brassband wants to blame it on "liberals"
Mike tells a long story about homosexual pedophiles, totally ignoring that the vast majority of sexual child abuse is by men against girls.
The hyper-sexualization of teens is not a consequence of liberalism. It's a consequence of capitalism. Corporate America. That's right. Not liberals, not radicals, but the mainstream busineses that profit from it.
The mainstream media, who I know some would like to portray as liberal, are really (as all corporations are) profit-making machines. I'm not making a judgement; I'm just saying what is the case. Sex sells. Young sex sells even better. Abercrombie and Fitch is not a liberal outfit. Porn distributors are not liberals. They are all capitalist entrepreneurs, like it or not.
Marx, who I know everyone here hates, said that one of the consequences of capitalism is that "all that is solid melts into air". Authority, tradition, culture, morals, and so on, cannot stand in the face of the profit motive.
If you want to know why America's daughters dress, talk and act like prostitutes, and why America's sons act like pimps and thugs, I think you're better off thinking about the profit motive than about ideology.
There is nothing "conservative" about capitalism.
Very true, Chalkdust. Look no further than Rupert Murdoch, who likes to think of himself and his cable news channel as the guardians of morality. Yet he has no problem making money off some of the sleaziest TV shows ever to reach our screens.
But then again, blaming liberals and gays is much more conveeeeeeeeeen-yent.
Yeah, that's why Larry Flynt's such a hero of the right and Hollywood promotes hard-right conservatives.
Look, Chalkdust, I wouldn't deny that consumerism plays a role in amplifying cultural trends, but what people want to buy will be affected by culture. If it's all the greedy capitalists, why wasn't the produce of an historically less regulated marketplace a downright pornmill? There are, of course, technological and other differences apart from culture, but in the give and take between the forces of marketing and the culture, a more conservative culture would have a different lowest common denominator, as it were.
As with the detrimental blend of free-market principles and selective government regulation (which helps to insulate incumbents), a cut-and-paste collage of left and right preferences creates a morass in which leeches can profit. A fully conservative strategy would allow for broad economic freedom but promote a culture that would act as a control, up to and including local standards for what is appropriate in the public square.
In aggregate, liberals exploded those controls, and their solutions for regulating the mess — e.g., giving explicit how-to instructions to children and allowing the murder of unborn babies unfortunate enough to be conceived by irresponsible parents — exacerbate the problem.
In actuality, "authority, tradition, culture, morals, and so on" cannot stand in an environment in which the only authority is the state and, like capitalists, politicians and other political creatures of the society realize that they can lure the ignorant and befuddle the bookish with appeals to their basest instincts.
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 12, 2008 10:18 PMI gotta agree more with Chalkdust on this one. Not because I’m a liberal because I am not.
It is unfair to blame liberalism for ‘hyper-sexualization’ as it was put. The reason is capitalism. Capitalism – as it drives business to supply the demand and, in my view more importantly, capitalism because the technology can amplify these practices so quickly.
If it's all the greedy capitalists, why wasn't the produce of an historically less regulated marketplace a downright pornmill?
---- Because back then, sexuality was more private. Today, it’s public and can be seen transmitted instantly via the internet. If you are saying that the reason less regulated markets didn’t produce more porn is because the culture was more ‘socially conservative’ than it is now, I don’t agree with 1) that is accurate and 2) even if it were to some degree, it would have an affect – not in a capitalistic environment.
A fully conservative strategy would allow for broad economic freedom but promote a culture that would act as a control, up to and including local standards for what is appropriate in the public square.
----- You want capitalism with more regulation on content to protect the innocent. Sounds good. Just as good as wanting complete governmental support to meet the needs of everyone to eliminate economic disparities.
Capitalism relies on more individual freedom (less government) with more individual responsibility. Socialism relies on more governmental regulation (less individual freedom) and therefore, less individual responsibility. Both forms have benefits and associated costs. Clearly, free markets allow more for negative consequences than full government regulation. But I believe the consequences are worth it because, in the end, socialism does not fit with human nature which pursues maximum freedom (albeit with minimum responsibility).
It’s not amazing why governing is such a challenge.
Posted by: msteven at March 13, 2008 1:26 PMMSteven,
Neither of your explanations — that capitalism "drives business to supply the demand" and facilitates "technology [that] can amplify these practices so quickly" — justifies the view that capitalism is the cause of moral decay, merely a medium and an expedient.
Who or, more accurately, what made sexuality a public, even political, affair? Who brought it out into the air for all to see? Made it "free"? Of course, profit-seekers saw the potential of sex to sell (just as leftist political actors saw the potential of sex for their own marketing purposes), but they didn't open the floodgates of demand.
At any rate, you're focusing on a narrow range of my complaint. Are capitalists to blame for the ease of abortion? I suppose they are if you include the profit-seeking folks at Planned Parenthood, but that organization is certainly on a line between profit and ideology. Did capitalists push for no fault divorce?
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 13, 2008 8:55 PMJustin,
I think it is you who is changing the range of your complaint. Your original post mentioned neither abortion nor divorce.
I did not say that capitalism is the cause of moral decay. I am saying that liberalism is not the cause of moral decay. Yes, there are prominent people and groups involved in the production, marketing and distribution of morally disgusting things (i.e.: Planned Parenthood) that are “liberal”. But painting the cause of moral decay with liberalism using your examples is akin to painting conservatism based on the actions and views of NARTH. There are prominent people and groups known as conservatives who are part of ‘immoral’ activities and I am sure you would defend accusations that painted conservatism with those activities.
The blame for ease of abortion goes to the Roe vs. Wade decision. The publicizing of abortion activities (both pro & con) is due to increased media which, in my view, is a result of capitalism. I thought that the number of abortions has decreased in the recent decade. I don’t see any relationship between no-fault divorce and liberal/conservative agenda.
Overall, I think your use of the words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ (or leftist) are misplaced in the context of your post. I think that the names ‘evangelical’ and ‘heathens’ would be more appropriate.
Posted by: msteven at March 14, 2008 12:20 PMI think it is you who is changing the range of your complaint. Your original post mentioned neither abortion nor divorce.
What do you suppose I meant by "increase access to the abortive undo, remove pressure toward (indeed undermine the culture of) marriage"? It would seem that you're a bit too keen to fall with the hipper side of the debate.
I did not say that capitalism is the cause of moral decay. I am saying that liberalism is not the cause of moral decay.
Actually, what you said was, "I gotta agree more with Chalkdust on this one." And what he said was, "The hyper-sexualization of teens is not a consequence of liberalism. It's a consequence of capitalism." He even emphasized the culpability of capitalism. So, which is it?
Although I think we may have different definitions of "conservative" and "liberal," I'm sure that you miss a key causative relationship in my position: I'm not saying so much that liberalism causes moral decay as that moral decay causes liberalism and libertinism, with the latter increasing the individual's investment in the former.
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 14, 2008 7:31 PMWhat do you suppose I meant by "increase access to the abortive undo, remove pressure toward (indeed undermine the culture of) marriage"? It would seem that you're a bit too keen to fall with the hipper side of the debate.
----- No, I’m not too keen to fall on hip. What I am is apparently a poor reader. I missed that part.
Actually, what you said was, "I gotta agree more with Chalkdust on this one." And what he said was, "The hyper-sexualization of teens is not a consequence of liberalism. It's a consequence of capitalism." He even emphasized the culpability of capitalism. So, which is it?
------ Fair enough. I’ll go with b) liberalism is not the cause of moral decay, which in my view is the defensive position of your original post. But I’ll use some of your words to say that I’m not saying SO MUCH that capitalism causes moral decay as that the moral decay you describe is not an actual decay but more of a brighter (public) light shown on it due to the effects of capitalism.
Yes, if your definitions of conservative/liberal are anything near to the analogy of evangelical/heathen, then yes, ours differ greatly.
Posted by: msteven at March 14, 2008 9:23 PM