Searching for the Middle Ground: Liberty, Criminality, and Responsibilty

Related Post Roulette

50 Responses

  1. Kazzy says:

    I heard a piece on child pornography that discussed how efforts to curb it exacerbated the issue. Online photos were being digitally tagged and tracked. This meant consumers needed new photos. This meant new victims. The question was whether it best to let 10, 20, or 30 year old pics circulate and hope that makes up the bulk of consumption or whether they continue to crack down and hope to eradicate the issue (which seems impossible). The question of victimhood is a real one. New pics mean new victims, but are adults who may not know what pics exist of them as children or where they are or who know they exist but don’t know details continually victimized by ongoing consumption? Which victim class should we focus on? I won’t pretend to know. But I’d say if Shields doesn’t object to the pieces existing than possessing them may say you’re a creep, but probably shouldn’t make you a criminal. What does Shields say?Report

    • Tod Kelly in reply to Kazzy says:

      I think it’s generally a bad idea to hang the legality of a crime as serious as child pornography (or for that matter, child abuse) on the question of whether or not you can get a victim to accept their victimhood.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Kazzy says:


      @tod-kelly has it right here probably.

      Brook Shields initiated a lawsuit against the photo and lost. The reasoning makes sense on legal grounds but is one of those things that will outrage the general population. I also wonder whether the same ruling would be made today and my bet is no. According to wikipedia, the Judge framed the issue as:

      “The issue on this appeal is whether an infant model may disaffirm a prior unrestricted consent executed on her behalf by her parent and maintain an action pursuant to section 51 of the Civil Rights Law against her photographer for republication of photographs of her. We hold that she may not”

      Basically because Sheilds’ mom gave her consent, Brooke Shields did not have the right to rescind. We would probably consider this an outrage today. Shields might have come to peace with the photo according to the podcast but they don’t go into details.

      There is another issue on the legality of the Richard Prince artwork v. the Garry Gross photo which goes into the whole weeds about the differences between art and pornography and what is art in the first place. Something that Richard Prince loves blurring the lines on. Richard Prince’s piece is called Spiritual America. That title is borrowed from an Alfred Steigletz photo of a gelded horse. So perhaps the Prince piece is more defendable under First Amendment grounds because he is making criticism on American society and values and how we moralize but also leer. You might be able to argue that the original photo has less artistic merit because the background makes it more straight up about sensual pleasure.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        I guess my point was that if the choice was “Outlaw the Shields pic and risk new pics with new victims being made” OR “Let them have the Shields pic assuming she’s okay with it”, you take the latter. Given she’s not okay with it, I don’t know what’s better.Report

      • aarondavid in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        “There is another issue on the legality of the Richard Prince artwork v. the Garry Gross photo which goes into the whole weeds about the differences between art and pornography and what is art in the first place”

        And this is why I find art to be completely subjective. In other words, what makes Jeffery Koons art vs. Bang Bro’s?Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to aarondavid says:


          I like some of Jeff Koons’ work. I wouldn’t mind displaying Bunny in my place.

          I am not super into Richard Prince. Though I must say that he is a master at playing all those who get really angry at him and he understands that Suicide Girls made a misguided attempt at trying to depress his market. The short version is that Richard Prince took a lot of stuff off instagram, blew it up and put it on nice stock, added some text and sold it at an NYC gallery for 90,000 each. Some of the stuff came from the instagram pages of various Suicide Girls. Suicide Girls responded by taking the Prince prints and adding their own comments and selling it for 90 dollars as posters. Suicide Girls thought they would depress the prices by mass producing. They probably ended up increasing the value of the Prince art works.

          Though I think part of the tension is that there is a lot of incomprehension at what the rich collect. In my anecdotal experience, a lot of people don’t understand why the rich like contemporary artists like Frank Stella, Gerhardt Richter, Andy Goldsworthy, the Boyle Family, Sol LeWitt, Tracey Emin, etc. I happen to generally prefer modern and contemporary art and this often gets a lot of incomprehensible stares. As does it when I express my never ending loathing for the pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and their false romanticism.Report

          • aarondavid in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            Well, when I am refering to Koons, I am talking about his Made In Heaven series, which he shot with his then wife, Ilona Staller If you haven’t seen those images, it would be hard for you to understand what I am reffering to. But here are a couple of the titles of pieces from that series Qvegl Rwnphyngvba naq Vyban?f Nffubyr. (Rot13 for your pleasure.)

            As for Richard Powers, I find his work trite. Like most modern art. The rich collecting it has no bearing on what I feel is good or bad as art. But I will say that the pre-Rafaelite Brotherhood at least had technical skills, which is much more than I can say for any of the contemporary artist you list that I am familiar with. Most modern art simply rests on the laurels of shocking the bourgeoisie, and as someone who grew up with punk, I can only roll my eyes.Report

            • Glyph in reply to aarondavid says:

              Hey, leave Richard Powers out of this, he’s a good novelist!Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to aarondavid says:

              You think so low of Richard Prince that you don’t even bother to get his name right!

              I know about Koons porno pieces with his former wife.

              The old artists did have technical skills, I can’t deny that. But on the other hand, it is those very traditional technical skills which turn me off from their work. I find it interesting that a lot of people still find Picasso controversial and out there even though the Park Avenue Armory show was over 100 years ago. There is just something that annoys me about the demand that art by illustrative and representative along with the false romanticism of most of their subject matter. I dislike their Arthur’s Britain that never existed for the same reason I dislike Tolkien’s romanticism of an English Countryside that never existed. So I do like that modern and contemporary art still produces outrage for not being “pretty” enough or not being representational enough.Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to aarondavid says:

              Basically whether people want to admit it or not, there is more reality in a De Chirico or Cy Towmbly painting or a Joseph Cornell assemblage or a Richard Serra sculpture than there is in something like this:


              At least there is to me.

              I am not totally opposed to representational art. I love Wayne Thieubaud.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                And David Hockney.Report

              • aarondavid in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Well, some of them do have skills, no denying that. But that said, much of the hyper moderns are simply pushing ideas, without the background in actually working through much of what is going on with other artists. I am rather dumbfounded that anyone would think Picasso at the Armory was still shocking, but twits are twits. Picasso had real skills though, not just snickering and tweeting. And, honestly, so did Thomas Kincaid. Now, I am not interested in his works, but he could really paint, and like much of the 18th century art world, he did understand that it is a business, not just a competition to see who can be the biggest asshole.and steal the most from others.

                As someone who has followed literary trends for many years, much of what we are discussing has come up in that area in the same manner. After a while, you see the same patterns and just yawn at new “hot” writers, as they aren’t breaking new ground so much as going back in the garage and painting the floor pink.

                I saw a Chris Burden installation once, in LA. Phenomenal. I so made up for all of his idiotic performance art, as you could spend time with it, look at it from various directions and see how much thought he really put into it over a period of time. And I am sure that being crucified on the back of a VW took some thought (rolls eyes) it achieved no reflection.

                (I actually like the novelist Richard Price quite a bit, and kept putting that name in my head.)Report

              • Alan Scott in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                To me, though, Richard Serra and Edward Burne-Jones are two sides of the same pretentious coin. Each cares more about breaking someone else’s rules than they do about creating a work that stands on its own merits.

                Which I guess might be cool to folks with MFAs–but for the rest of us, we don’t know the rules that are being attacked. Viewing the works of art you champion (and for that matter, the works of art you despise) feels like coming in to a conversation that’s already half over. Looking over “The beguiling of Merlin” I don’t have enough artistic education to care why Jones felt the need to draw a woman with a book and a dude splayed oddly in a bush, so I’m forced to judge the painting as just some picture of a woman with a book and a dude splayed oddly in a bush–on which grounds it rates a solid “meh”.

                The same is true, Mutatis Mutandis, for Richard Serra–and saying that Serra’s bunch of triangles even rates a “meh” is being a little bit generous.

                I get that Serra means more to you–and that’s great. He should. And, even if you don’t actually like him, Burne-Jones means more to you also.

                But when I look at a Serra sculpture or a Towmbly painting, I’m unimpressed. And that’s not because I’m a square who is bothered by unconventional art–it’s just because I’m not, and was never intended to be a part of the conversation they’re having.

                In contrast, though, I enjoy De Chirico–because I don’t need hours of education in the history of visual art to look at his works and go “woah, cool”.Report

              • SaulDegraw in reply to Alan Scott says:

                Fair warning, this is going to be a comment rescue/post.

                My MFA is in theatre directing. I only studied art and art history independently and on the side-lines. I never took an official Art History survey course. A lot of what I like is just on a sight based aesthetic level.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Kazzy says:

      @kazzy besides what @tod-kelly said and the fact that future crime can’t be used to justify past crime, there is another point against this argument. It won’t work. I had a friend in college who couldn’t understand why they kept creating new porn when porn itself is very repetitive in what is depicted. He thought it would be better just to create some really excellent porn and keep distributing that. What he forgot is that people want novelty and new things. Even if the acts depicted in regular porn are repetitive, people are going to want to see new porn stars and porn made with the newest best, technology. The same desire for novelty always means that the audience for the types of porn that the law can not allow will always be in demand for newer and better versions of it. This is why their needs to be continued prosecution of the illegitimate types of porn.Report

  2. LWA says:

    The law requires bright shining lines and clarity and consistent logic, all things we lack when it comes to our bodies and sexuality and our children.

    I was old enough in the 70’s to remember how it was, that the widening boundaries of the sexual revolution were just beginning to get pushback. I am just a few years older than Brooke Shield, and as a teenager saw that picture. I remember the feelings of arousal and desire that me and my friends shared with each other, but how we ultimately arrived at the conclusion that as 15 year olds it was weird and creepy to be thinking about a 10 year old.

    I guess that’s where it comes down for me. That the boundaries of cultural norms are negotiated through dialogue and consensus, based on our moral intuitions and an exchange of reason.
    I can’t think of abstract arguments that can be external to us that offer clarity and absolute fixed boundaries.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to LWA says:

      I think part of the issue is that it really is all about balance. Too much denial of want leads to people being pent up and needing to go wild. This doesn’t necessarily need to be about puritanical cultures though. The wanton destruction of WWI probably lead to the wildness and frivolity of the 1920s.

      The 1970s were really about probably decades of pent-up rebellion against moralizing on sexuality where only Bohemian rebels had sex before marriage or you were somehow bad or immoral for having sex before marriage. The issue is that it all kind of avalanched.

      Of course as Tod pointed out on a different thread, Americans might be damned to always being kind of puritanical when it comes to sex. A lot of the punishments done to the teenager seem to be the judge saying “Damn these teenagers with their Tinder. I’ll show them.”

      I am always struck by the Philip Larkin poem:

      Sexual intercourse began
      In nineteen sixty-three
      (which was rather late for me) –
      Between the end of the Chatterley ban
      And the Beatles’ first LP.

      Up to then there’d only been
      A sort of bargaining,
      A wrangle for the ring,
      A shame that started at sixteen
      And spread to everything.

      Then all at once the quarrel sank:
      Everyone felt the same,
      And every life became
      A brilliant breaking of the bank,
      A quite unlosable game.

      So life was never better than
      In nineteen sixty-three
      (Though just too late for me) –
      Between the end of the Chatterley ban
      And the Beatles’ first LP.Report

  3. Will H. says:

    1) I remember the time when the age of consent in Canada was raised from 12 to 14. It wasn’t done to “protect the children,” but to interfere with the capacity for “sex tourism” following the arrest of a prominent talk-radio host.

    Frankly, I’m not sure what these types of laws are really for anyway, and perhaps that should be clarified when adjudging an appropriate age for consent. If the notion is to keep people within their age cohort in sexual relations, then Bo Derek and Anna Nicole Smith.

    Additionally: Roman Polanski. Yes, to read Tess of the d’Urbervilles inadvertently promotes child rape.

    2) There is a lot of focus on the laws in Michigan due to temporal proximity. Yet few have the odiousness of Speagle v. Ferguson. This case additionally has the benefit of showing how stupid law enforcement officers can be, finding completely credible witnesses that later recant.
    It was in large part because of this case that I refused to sit with my state representative at an event at the capitol. The big legislative agenda she’s pushing is for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for child sex offenders, and truncating the review process. I think she’s insane; completely disconnected from reality might be a more charitable statement.

    3) The criminal justice system of today is essentially the Reformation of Jim Crow. All that b.s. about white knights out there “fighting crime” is just that– b.s. The main work of the police is to seize contraband (source: CRJ 110, Spring 2014, taught by a police detective).
    In this state, burglary is a negotiation by the prosecutor: It carries a mandatory sentence, so it can be pleaded down in exchange for a sentence of probation.
    Murder, drugs, sex crimes, and DUI– all other things are essentially permissible.
    Non-payment of child support is another thing that a lot of people end up in prison for.
    Eradication of these five things should provide the most ideal of societies. At least that’s the operating management philosophy of the state’s attorney’s office.Report

    • Maribou in reply to Will H. says:

      You remember the time, @will-h? Because the change from 12 to 14 happened in 1890. Pretty sure there weren’t talk radio hosts then, also. So I’m assuming you mean the change from 14 to 16?

      (Sorry to quibble, but, dude, Canada gets enough crap for being “behind the times” without misinformation like this.)Report

      • Will H. in reply to Maribou says:

        Not sure about this.

        I double-checked this.
        From here:

        The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

        The change I’m thinking of came a few years before that.Report

        • Will H. in reply to Will H. says:

          The clock cut me out of the edit.

          The change I was thinking of came in May of 2008.
          That was the one I wrote about.
          I found the article I wrote, but I can’t find the link within the article. (not the right one anyway).Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Will H. says:

      1. There was a girl in my high school who went to senior prom with a 35 year old guy. I am pretty sure that the school admin would have loved for this not to happen but she was 18. We have been through this before but yes once someone turns 18, you can’t stop them from dating who they want. The 18 and 35 year old is probably an extreme example. There do seem to be a lot of high school aged women with college aged boyfriends. In my experience, I have heard a lot of women talk about how they were much more mature than the boys they knew in high school. This might or might not be true but that doesn’t necessarily mean that most high school girls are mature enough to date guys in their 20s. Male adolescent immaturity seems to involve devil may care risk taking. Female adolescent immaturity seems to involve thinking you are more adult than you really are. There are a lot of guys who know how to exploit this desire. I once belonged to an internet community where most people were in their college years or early 20s. There was a wide age range though including high school students and people in their 30s and 40s. A lot of guys would tell the younger females that they were “wise beyond their years.”

      I don’t disagree with 2 and think 3 is largely but not completely unto something.Report

      • Will H. in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        re: # 3:
        I forgot about tobacco sales to minors! A turrble, turrble, crime! Prosecution-worthy.

        re: # 2:
        I was at this fund-raiser for the Innocence Project, and there was the one prosecutor there that everyone (seemed to) love to hate (which is odd, considering how many prosecutors & judges were at the event… ).
        Anyway, this prosecutor from Lake County had just retired. He had a reputation for fighting tooth-and-nail against the release of persons exonerated by DNA evidence.

        They’re about to kick me out of the library. Not anything bad I’ve done (provided lots & lots of Civ V is not to be considered “bad” per se… ), but they’re about to close.
        But because I know you love the stage. . .
        Enter the closing from The Carol Burnett Show.Report

  4. Tod Kelly says:

    My one minor quibble with this post is the pointing the finger at the 70s. I think you will find that the under-18 taboo is an extremely recent one, historically speaking. Go back to the earliest days of rock and R&B juts a decade or two behind the 70s, in fact, and you’ll see that a whole lot of songs are about lusting after girls of an age that we would now find creepy.

    And it was only a decade prior to that where 13 was the age of consent. Go back even further, and you will see that the age of consent was up to the states, and throughout most of the 19th century that age was usually between 10 and 12. (France caused something of an international outrage when it prudishly decided to raise its own AOC age to 13 in the late 19th century.)

    In fact, increasing ages of AOC laws in the US — first to 13, then to 16, then to 18 — weren’t actually initially made to protect women from predators. They were written and pushed by what we might mis-recognize today as the religious Right (but who were in fact the days’ progressives), and they were made to protect unmarried women from themselves by making it a crime for them to give in to their sexual desires until they were at an age when they were largely considered used up.

    Sex, morality, and law are actually trickier things when combined than does first appear.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Tod Kelly says:


      For most history, people died young and women often died in childbirth but you are right that the idea of a child bride was not too uncommon in recent history. But California’s age of consent has been 18 for over 50 years and possibly a century. In Crim Law, we read a case from 1960 that involved an 18 or 19 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old and the California Supreme Court had to figure out whether this should count as statutory rape or not.Report

    • LWA in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      Another way to put it- For most of history, young girls were not considered valuable enough to protect.

      This, too, I remember from the 70’s. All the articles discussing teen sexuality, where it would be pointed out that the historical norm was very young and the 20th Century American view was simple prudishness.

      Much less discussed was that for many young girls, their sexual initiation would be at the hands of an older brother, family friend, or father, before being given away as chattel to a much older man in marriage.

      We can acknowledge that young people have their own agency and desires, while also understanding that when you live in a world where your very person is the property of someone else, talk about “consent” becomes pointless.

      In case anyone missed it, there is a terrific article on Huffpo about the teen band The Runaways and how despite being rock star celebrities, the girls were used as fodder by their much older manager Kim Fowley.Report

      • Gabriel Conroy in reply to LWA says:

        Another way to put it- For most of history, young girls were not considered valuable enough to protect.

        I see it differently. Women/young girls were considered very valuable possessions to be protected for the benefit of a larger group (either the family, or in some cases the polis or society.)

        Of course, #notallsocietiesinhistory and #thingschangeovertimesowecan’treallytalkabout”mostofhistory”anywaybutiunderstoodwhatyoumeantReport

        • Will H. in reply to Gabriel Conroy says:

          The same as I was looking at it, though primarily as a form of property; everyone from Catherine de Medici to Elizabeth I to Helen Keller.
          The view, generally, (as still is) that estate transcends property.
          A marriageable woman is an asset to an estate.Report

      • Glyph in reply to LWA says:

        for many young girls, their sexual initiation would be at the hands of an older brother…or father

        Is this really true? I mean, yeah, it happens for sure, but I mean in a widespread, society-approved (or even passive intentionally-ignoring it) way?

        I thought that parent-child and sibling-sibling incest taboos were near-universal across human societies (with some exceptions on sibling-sibling in royal dynastic situations), whereas other types of incest taboo (cousins, clans etc.) are more variable across culture.

        Can you name a culture where it is common that her father or brother initiates a young girl sexually, or is this just one of those kind of “hillbilly” myths?Report

        • Road Scholar in reply to Glyph says:

          Glyph: I thought that parent-child and sibling-sibling incest taboos were near-universal across human societies (with some exceptions on sibling-sibling in royal dynastic situations), whereas other types of incest taboo (cousins, clans etc.) are more variable across culture.

          At the risk of irritating @chris , both incest and, to a lesser degree, miscegenation taboos have a fairly solid evo-psych explanation, based on likelihood of reproductive success.

          The risks of amplifying deleterious genetic traits inherent to close incest are well-known, but there are lesser-known risks attached to mating at too great a genetic distance as well. For example, the size of both teeth and jaws are hereditary but independently, so that it’s possible to get a mismatch, which could be a very bad thing, at least prior to modern dentistry. It could be sort of like crossing widely disparate dog breeds where some of the parts don’t end up fitting together very well.

          In humans the effects are more subtle and “stranger danger” racism is likely the larger factor but the effect is real. Some years back a study was conducted in Iceland IIRC, because it’s a smallish, mostly isolated population and they have kept extensive and accurate genealogical records going back to the 19th century. What they found was that the “sweet spot” for reproductive success, as measured by the number of grandchildren, occurred in second-cousin pairings.

          I know this doesn’t really answer your question but a) I think it’s interesting, and b) it would point toward the answer being “no.”Report

          • Alan Scott in reply to Road Scholar says:

            Anti-incest taboos are likely connected to the Westermarck effect–a biological anti-incest imprinting.

            But the Westermarck effect is a result of proximity during childhood, rather than actual consanguinity. So civilizations in which close relatives were raised apart from each other might have much more limited taboos–That means that the increased prevalence of consanguineous marriages among nobility actually makes a lot of sense–as each child was likely raised by a separate set of servants.

            I was reading an article by an adoption counselor who worked with people who had been separated from families at birth or a very young age. He was saying that feelings of sexual attraction were actually pretty common for people reunited with previously unknown relatives. It was a fascinating, if creepy, article.Report

            • Road Scholar in reply to Alan Scott says:

              Alan Scott: Anti-incest taboos are likely connected to the Westermarck effect–a biological anti-incest imprinting.

              Well sure, there’s a name for it. But why does the Westermarck effect exist in the first place?

              The core assumption of evo-psych theory is that certain psychological traits, or perhaps more accurately, the predisposition toward certain psychological traits, is heritable. And being heritable they’re subject to natural selection. So if mating with close biological relatives decreases reproductive success, and if “grew up in close proximity” is a reasonably good proxy for “close biological relatives,” then the Westermarck effect makes perfect sense from an evo-psych perspective.

              … feelings of sexual attraction were actually pretty common for people reunited with previously unknown relatives.

              This also makes sense given that peak reproductive success seems to occur between pairings that are sorta close but not too close — second cousins. The two effects, attractive and repulsive, balance out at what would be a typical mating distance for members of a typical tribal group.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Road Scholar says:

                Yeah, I remember reading about both phenomena (the fact that a person will view any person that they witnessed being reared by their own parents from a young age as their “sibling” whether biologically-related or not, and therefore be repulsed by the idea of sex with them; as well as the sexual attraction of close relatives that were previously unacquainted with one another).

                Any way you slice it, I feel fairly confident that in the vast preponderance of situations and societies, their fathers and brothers are generally not going to be the ones initiating girls sexually. We can say that women have historically gotten a raw deal in many, many ways without perpetuating this particular false “hillbilly” stereotype/rare exception.Report

            • LeeEsq in reply to Alan Scott says:

              The Westermarck effect made utopian events at communes and collective child rearing interesting. When the kibbutzim were experimenting in collective child raising, basically kid’s grew up in dorms rather than with their parents even though they were in the same commune, the kids ended up not being interested in each other when they grew up because of the Westermarck effect.Report

          • Chris in reply to Road Scholar says:

            That certainly won’t upset me, as you don’t need Tooby-Cosmides-Buss-Pinker style EP to explain it. In fact, you can’t explain it with that, as it is far too old, evolutionarily. That it was largely recognized and understood in evolutionary theory before any of those people were born is telling.

            The mechanisms in humans are still being worked out (e.g., is it imprinting ala Westermarck, do we have some sort of sophisticated kin-recognition mechanism that recognizes genetic similarity and perhaps even dissimilarity?), but they won’t need the EEA or stone-age minds to do so, thankfully.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      Jerry Lee Lewis did destroy is career by actually following through on his desire to be with a very young girl, and a cousin. Most Americans in the 1950s found his marriage really squeaky. On the other hand, Elvis got away with it.Report

  5. LeeEsq says:

    The early years of the Sexual Revolution seemed not to have come with adequate safety precautions.Report

  6. LeeEsq says:

    The conversation about the distinction between art and porn was very reminiscent about the debates that the Dada movement had about what is art during the early 20th century. Richard Price seems to follow in the Marcel Duchamp idea that if an artist has an idea, no matter how ridiculous, and implements the idea it is art. For Marcel Duchamp it was taking a urinal and turning it upside down and put R. Mutt on it. For Richard Price, its turning porn from the Suicide Girls into $90,000 pieces of art.

    I really have to disagree with Amy Adler on the child pornography issue. Considering what is at stake, the sexual and economic exploitation of a child by an adult (and using children as subjects for art is a form of child labor), it is better that the law take a better safe than sorry approach to the matter rather than go for maximum human freedom.Report

  7. Chris says:

    Here is a pretty nice summary of the history of age of consent laws:

    And a table:

    • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

      I remember a major news network years ago running a story about whether the tradition of the quinceañera was a form of child abuse.
      I thought at the time that the idea was outlandish, that surely this was some fringe group without a a brain the size of a raisin to rattle around in their heads.
      That was before I started reading caselaw on Wisconsin’s DCFS. Those people are bad. I think a lot of that though is that the job tends to draw people with an axe to grind. Everyone does something well, and many people do well those things many others prefer they not do at all.Report