Packer offense blows chance to ice the game late, but Cardinals throw away a victory in final seconds as Packers survive 24-21

 

In a game between two of the top teams in the NFC, which the underdog Packers—more so because of the absence of Davante Adams and Allen Lazard because of COVID protocols—survived to win because they only played only a little less messy than the Cardinals played, 24-21. Seemingly with victory “in the bag,” the game turned into a nail-biter. Aaron Rodgers resorted to mostly dump-off passes, completing just one pass of 20+ yards, and finished with just 184 yards on 37 pass attempts. The Packers were however able to run the ball between the twenties on a Cardinal rush defense that is in the bottom half of the league, and the Packers were able to control the ball for over 37 minutes with only one turnover—on downs, resulting in the near snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The defense held Kyler Murray and the Cardinal offense to under 100 yards in the first half, but it was still just a 10-7 game. After the Cardinals first possession of second half was quickly terminated on an intercepted pass, the two teams exchanged touchdown drives until Packers failed to score after reaching the one-yard line with a first down late in the game, and then botched the opportunity for a game-clinching score. Just as he had on the previous two touchdown drives, Murray led the Cardinals downfield seemingly effortlessly for the likely game-winning touchdown in the closing seconds, but on a bizarre play in which AJ Green never turned to look for the ball despite the fact he was likely the first option (game analyst Troy Aikman was at loss to explain it), Murray’s pass went unnoticed by him, but not by the Packers’ Rasul Douglas, whose interception stole victory from the jaws of defeat.

In a road game like this when the Packers are not favored to win, you have to take advantage of your opportunities, usually all of them. After a muffed punt was recovered at the Cardinals’ three-yard line, Rodgers misfired on three consecutive passes; of course that all would have been moot had Ty Summers run it in for a touchdown instead of just falling on the ball. Was it a “mistake” for Matt LaFleur not to have gone for it on fourth down instead of kicking a field goal? That is what the “analytics” was saying, but Rodgers seemed be throwing the ball in closed windows the closer he got to the goal line, and the way it ended up, those three points were the difference in the game.

Then late in the fourth quarter, the Packers had a first down at the one-yard line and failed to score; a touchdown would have iced the game; instead, the defense collapsed for the third straight possession, this time allowing the Cardinals to advance from their own one-yard line all the way to the Packer five-yard line with 15 seconds to play before all that effort was saved by Murray’s second interception, and the Cardinals third turnover of the game.

While Packers overturned the expectations of most “experts,” they didn’t “dominate,” and this game probably said more about where the Cardinals and Murray are; their most impressive win this year was against division rival Rams, and the Packers were the first team they have played this year that was a division leader. Still, a win on the road against an unbeaten team can’t help but at least give a moment’s pause to the naysayers, like ESPN’s Ryan Clark.

Next up is another road contest, this time against the Chiefs, who seem to be having a down year after two consecutive Super Bowl appearances; though tonight’s game was an important test, it wasn’t convincing enough to suggest that this next game promises a similar result. Frankly, it seems a bit unfair that the Packers—whose AFC opponents this season are supposed to be from the AFC North—must play as their “extra” game this season on the road against a team the Chiefs, but you have to suck it up and be who you pretend to be.

This amateur "philosopher" thinks that bad "inference" makes for bad "judgment"

 

This week I received an email as a reminder of an upcoming online discussion of a topic hosted by a philosophy professor, with graduate students and other “friends” of the University of Tennessee’s Philosophy Department invited to participate. I’m not sure what I did to qualify; I think I might have taken one philosophy course when I was there, but more likely it was because eons ago, for some inexplicable reason, I donated a couple bucks to the department. I was informed that this discussion would examine how

In previously unnoticed remarks that span four decades, Kant consistently classifies inference as an act of judgment. I explain why Kant originally held this view and then examine what this implies about his account of the nature of judgment. I present evidence for a surprising implication: namely, that, for Kant, an act of judgment necessarily coincides with other, inferentially-related acts of judgment.

I confess I am completely out of my depth there; what I know about Immanuel Kant is that one, he is considered one of the most influential enlightenment philosophers and moralists, and two, he was proof positive that the philosophers of his time should not have ventured into the bizarro world of 18^th century anthropology, lest one have a stain on their reputation, and be accused of being one of the “founding fathers” of scientific racism, eugenics and where all that led to. 

As to the proposition, I can throw out there what I "think" it means. Let’s use as an example making the “judgment” that a person is going to be late for work or an appointment by an “inference” based on the evidence of running down a sidewalk in work clothes, with a bus stop nearby, and bus is pulling up to the stop. We don’t know it for certain, but we can make that judgment based on what the observation “infers.” Of course if the “judgment” is correct, from there we can “infer” other judgments—like the probability of missing a phone call, missing a meeting, not getting work done on time, having a talk with a supervisor, and getting fired. These are all technically different facts, but can be “inferred” to be interrelated and “coincide” with another “judgment,” that something “not good” will happen when one is late for work or misses a bus. Can’t you tell I know what the hell I’m talking about?

But there is also another way of approaching “inference as an act judgment,” since it seems to me that “inference” and “judgment” are often used interchangeably, depending upon how they are deployed, but do in certain contexts refer to different things, and sometimes can be entirely at odds with one another. “Inference” is making an observation of given evidence, and making an “educated” assumption about its meaning.  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “judgment” is “the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing; an opinion or estimate so formed.” But it can also mean “the capacity for judging” and “a proposition stating something believed or asserted”—meaning something that may in fact be based on faulty “inference.”

Let’s whittle down the previous example: A white man is running down the sidewalk in casual work attire. The “inference” is that he is “probably” late for work or trying to catch a bus—the point being that he is going to a place. No one really gives it much thought, unless he knocks someone over; “judgment” only comes into play if someone is required to “explain” why think they this, but generally it is just “assumed,” without need to justify the belief. It is “natural” behavior for someone who is trying to get to a place in a hurry.

But change just one word in that equation and not only is there a different “inference,” but that a “judgment” is made becomes more obvious. What if the man who is seen running is black or Hispanic? Unlike the white man, who is assumed is running to a place, some people would make the “inference” that they are running away from a place, because of the assumption that these people only act in this way after the commission of some unlawful act. It is not “natural,” given the usual stereotypes, that they may actually be running because they are late for work or to catch a bus. The person in question may in a particular case be in fact doing what the onlooker assumes (as the white man could be doing as well), but such "inferences" are in most cases still wrong.

This is where “judgment” does come into play. Making completely different “inferences” of the same act and evidence leads to making a “judgment” not on the act but on the person doing the acting. I don’t know if that makes any sense, but what I do know is that people often make “judgments” that are based on faulty “interpretation” of the object of “inference.”

Mayoral candidate Lorena Gonzalez foolishly allows herself to become a victim of black activism desperate to stay "relevant" in Seattle

 

Before I get into the subject of this post, I just want to give this jerk his half-second of notoriety for ignoring repeated “requests” to wear his face mask on the Metro bus, including by the driver who played the recorded message by the department of health stating that it was required, just for his benefit:

 

Anyways, I recall something while on a bus some years ago after the media was reporting that, according to Census data, Hispanics had passed blacks as the largest “minority” group in the country. I overheard the bus driver, who was black, complain to another black man that the “Mexicans think they are above us now.”  I doubt any “Mexicans” think that at all, constantly getting beat on for being here. To me all this “revelation” meant was that there was now more Hispanics than blacks to discriminate against, and besides, even if there were technically more Hispanics, they certainly don’t have anywhere near the media power blacks have to promote themselves and air their grievances.

And if the numbers are a problem, there is always a way to fix that, at least in so-called “liberal” Seattle:

 

That’s right—just make them “disappear.” According to this, there are no “Hispanics” or “Latinos” in Seattle. I mean, they couldn’t even count the people with Spanish names? Obviously the “justification” for this is very likely the pettiness and victim “entitlement” of blacks and other titleholders. Since Hispanics are not a “race” but an “ethnicity,” your prejudice against them cannot be called “racism” but something whatever, and whatever it is, it is "justified" and you needn't feel any "guilt" about it. You can’t call it “racism” even though that prejudice is derived from the way they “look,” meaning the amount of indigenous Indian in them, which, “sad” to say, is a “race,” which is why American Indian is included in the racial demographics.

Hispanics are an “ethnicity”? What the hell does that mean? Barack Obama’s mother is white, but nobody calls him an “ethnicity.” The hypocrisy of these “liberals” and “entitled victims” in Seattle is absolutely amazing. I’ve always said you only have to be “racist” against one group to be one, no matter how hard you try to call it something else.

Admittedly, it isn’t just blacks who insist that Hispanics are an “ethnicity”; some Hispanics who are what I call “Euro-elites” don’t want to be lumped in with “them”—meaning the vast majority of Hispanics, who have some, mostly or all indigenous Indian blood. Racism against people of non-European ancestry (again, mainly indigenous people and “mestizos”) runs deep in Latin America; you only have to watch Spanish-language television to know that, or that those Oscar-winning Mexican directors only work with white American actors. Indigenous people are of course not included in the “American Indian” column in Seattle’s demographic list, even though they are mainly from North America (which includes Mexico) and Central “America.”

Now, the reason why I am bringing all of this up is because of a local news story. As I mentioned before in my King County Council post, I have little interest in local politics, since nothing changes save for the names and the faces. This year’s mayoral contest is between Bruce Harrell, who is of black and Japanese “ethnicity”—let’s not be hypocrites now—and Lorena Gonzalez; both are currently Seattle City Council members. OK now, I have already turned in my mail-in ballot, and I voted for Gonzalez because I know she doesn’t have a prayer of winning.  

It frankly baffles me why Gonzalez thinks she can get elected mayor in this city with its culture of prejudice against Hispanics; she must be like that Melissa Villasenor on Saturday Night Live; she recently appeared on a Weekend Update segment, supposedly to talk about Hispanic Heritage Month, but instead as a “joke” talked about her difficulty in getting a date with a host or a musical guest—none of course who are Hispanic. This “confirmed” my suspicions of those Hispanic women I see who cling to “gringo” men like a wet rag, completely without self-respect, selling whatever it is they got to sell for fake “social status.” By the way, when I was in college a white male student told me that he thought Hispanic girls are “cute” when they are “young”—but then they get “fat.”

Well anyways, it seems that Gonzalez has kicked up a bit of dirt into the faces of these “liberal” and black hypocrites in Seattle, and they of course are resorting to the usual name-calling. Being behind in the polls with a week before the election, Gonzalez has a campaign spot that resorted to an old accusation of Harrell giving then mayor Ed Murray a “pass” when some men came forward to accuse Murray of molesting them years ago, and added their contributions to the “MeToo” shit parade. At the time, Gonzalez insisted that Murray resign immediately, while Harrell and the other members of council insisted that the mayor deserved due process instead of a knee-jerk reaction.

Don’t get me wrong; I am entirely with Harrell on that, but it seems to me that if the people who came forward were women, there wouldn’t be this conversation in “rainbow” Seattle. But Gonzalez was ahead of the curve on this issue, since the mayor did resign when five men came forward with accusations against him, although he was never in fact charged with a crime; Gonzalez was simply following (sincerely or opportunistically) the dictates of politically-correct, “woke” Seattle, and with Murray’s resignation, it allowed the current mayor, Jenny Durkan, to just ride the gender politics wave into town. Unlike Harrell, Gonzalez actually has “credibility” on the issue as far as “woke” Seattle is concerned, while Harrell “flinched” in this instance of “victims of violence.”

Is it a “racist trope” to point out that Harrell chose to be behind the curve? Why is it a  “baseless smear campaign” and “race-baiting,” unless you are “self-conscious” about the fact that a certain demographic accounts for homicides in the city at seven times its population percentage? Well, OK, in “race-conscious” Seattle, data on perpetrators of crime by race is not publically available, only the race of the victims; but we can assume that if the victims of a particular race are seven-times the rate of its population, the perpetrators are at least that much. That isn’t even the issue here, but black activists are making it one in a desperate effort to maintain some kind of political relevance in a city where blacks are increasingly being “replaced” by east and south Asians, many of them H-1B visa holders imported by tech companies, to answer phones and do data processing that most people can do, but for which Asian managers prefer their “own.”

Still, it was a mistake for Gonzalez to post the spot because in a competition between gender and black “entitlement” to “victimization," hypocrisy always wins. I mean, Harrell has the black and Asian vote, and she actually thinks she can get even the white women vote? But what is “disgusting” to me is to read Paula Sardinas, who was a member of the State African American Affairs Commission and an alleged “advocate” for victims of assault, claim that Gonzalez was “trafficking” in “anti-Black dog whistles that harm our community” when in fact that certainly was not her intent.

It is also disgusting to me how Hispanics/Latinos are demonized and dehumanized by the media (white or black) in this country, and are only “noticed” when there is an opportunity to make ridiculous and hypocritical accusations against them. Just keep beating on them, because they don't "belong." You know what? All you people making these accusations against Gonzalez are the real racists.

Martin, Petito and Hart Family cases show us how denial and failure of responsibility are the true causes of tragedy

 

Below is a photograph from a Black Lives Matter protest in Portland, Oregon in 2014. We have been told one story about its meaning. I think this photo tells an entirely different story.

 

But before I get into that, first let me say that being the “cynical” type when it comes to examining human nature, thanks in large part to a distinctly “not normal” childhood and the ignorance of most “strangers” I encounter, I don’t follow the “politically correct” line if it is as odds with the facts. For example, I could not but note the media hypocrisy in the Trayvon Martin case; Martin grew up in a comfortable middle class home, yet he made a conscious choice to be a “gangsta,” suspended from school three times for defacing school property, selling drugs and discovered with jewelry that had been reported that very day stolen from a local residence. The school merely recorded it as “found property.”

Being suspended from school didn’t mean anything to Martin; to him it was probably a confirmation of his gangsta “cred.”  His mother was never forthcoming with the truth about how it was impossible to control him and simply had enough of him, and when she sent him to live with her ex-husband, the latter didn’t warn her that he would likely find others like him to hang out with who were of no better “character.” This “boy” needed “correction” from professionals in the matter of juvenile law breaking, not school officials and a mother, both of whom simply kicked him out the door, hoping someone else would “fix” the problem without what he needed, which was probably time in juvenile hall.

Samford, Florida was a neighborhood struggling with crime from mostly “transient young black males,” according to a Reuters story at the time; local news reported the “chilling” episode of a Hispanic mother and her infant son hiding in a closet while she whispered to a 9-1-1 operator that two black males had broken into her apartment and conducting a search and seizure operation. Just two weeks before Martin showed up, George Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood “watch captain,” had called police about two black males who looking inside the windows of a darkened home. The police told him they would “take care of it”; the next day, the residents of that home reported that a laptop computer had been stolen.

Then another “transient” who had just arrived that day appeared to be scoping out apparently unoccupied residences; how it ended up was that Martin didn’t know that the man whose skull he was trying to crack open on the pavement also had a gun to defend himself with—which Zimmerman didn’t use until after people who heard his cries for help did nothing. If any “racism” was evident here, it was in the media’s dehumanizing and demonizing portrayal of Zimmerman, a “white” Hispanic, in contrast to “innocent child” who had chosen a life of crime.

So too do I see massive hypocrisy in the Gabby Petito case. As I pointed out in my “Trip of discovery” post last month, people have been conned by the media about what occurred here. Petito’s destructive behavior destroyed not just one life, but two lives and two families after the discovery of Brian Laundrie’s remains in Florida. Petito was probably suffering from the same mental illness as the Sky Metalwala’s killer/mother, Julia Biryukova. It was reported that her ex-husband and the boy’s father, Solomon Metalwala, sometimes was forced to eat his meals outside because of Biryukova’s obsessive “cleanliness” issues, which was diagnosed as obsessive compulsive disorder. Biryukova was hospitalized three times for mental health issues, including for having “dreams” of killing her children.

Yet at least there was some “effort” to treat Biryukova; there was apparently none to treat Petito’s, We are told that Petito’s parents were “hoping” that Laundrie would “take care of her,” which was just way a dishonest way of saying they wanted someone to take her out of their hands. It was a major mistake to go on a cross-country trip that everyone who knew of Petito’s “issues” should have warned against. Yet what have we been told by the media? They keep using that brief clip of Petito crying like a child in a police van; the complete one-hour police cam video tells a completely different story than the one “intended,” more like someone in “distress” because she doesn’t want to account for her own actions—perhaps because she can’t, which is one “symptom” of obsessive compulsive disorder. We told about a 9-1-1 call at odds with the police report which claims that Laundrie—rather than striking Petito—had his arms up defending himself from Petito’s blows; obviously, some people just see what they want to see for political reasons. In the end, Laundrie apparently committed suicide, and since there is no “justice” in that, charges against his parents are being considered.

While we are on the subject of hypocrisy, does anyone remember the Hart family case, and how that turned out? What I find found fascinating about this case was not the “outrage” it inspired—which it did not—but that it was just a “curiosity.” To refresh people’s memory if they are familiar with the case at all, A lesbian couple, Sarah and Jennifer Hart (Sarah was described as the “wife”), had adopted six black children, Hannah, Abigail, Sierra, Jeremiah, Devonte and Markis:

 

 

On the surface, this seemed an admirable, “progressive” action on their part (the Harts called it an “alternative family” unit.” The “beautiful” family was called the “Hart Tribe” by friends, but something was amiss. The “family” moved from Minnesota to Oregon, and then to Washington. These moves were all precipitated by allegations of child abuse—including the final one, in California.

 

At the crash site in Mendocino County, the overturned GMC Yukon that was found at the bottom of a cliff, the bodies of three children were outside the vehicle, and the two adult women inside; two more bodies were found later, and the remains of one boy, Devonte, has never been found, although he had been seen in the vehicle by witnesses. Toxicology reports stated that three of the four children tested had enough of the drug Diphenhydramine to render them unable to function; Sarah Hart was also found to have the drug in her system, while Jennifer Hart—who was the driver—was found to have an elevated amount of alcohol in her blood. According to the vehicle’s “black box,” apparently after the vehicle had been stopped on a dirt turnout, 70 feet from the edge of the cliff, it was then accelerated at 100 percent (meaning the accelerator was pressed all the way to the floor), although vehicle had only reached 20 MPH before it went over the cliff, falling 140 feet to bottom. 

 

 

Mendocino County released its Hart inquest report in 2019, which is available on-line. Its “Final Summary of the Hart Investigation” states the following:

2011: Several Child Protection Services complaints in Minnesota. Sarah Hart arrested and sentenced to probation. Accusations of physical abuse and withholding food from children. \

2013: Oregon Child Protective Services opens investigation into family. Accusations of withholding food from children. A doctor’s evaluation determines kids are below average but acceptable. Case is closed in 2013.

2017: Hart Family purchases house in Woodland, WA. Neighbors report seeing white sedan and gold Yukon going to and from house but never see kids or parents outside. Neighbor say there is little or no contact with family.

2017: Neighbors say Hannah came to their house in middle of night in panic asking for help. Jennifer, Sarah and other kids show up looking for Hannah. Jennifer talks Hannah into coming home. Entire family returns at 6 AM the next morning to apologize. Explains that kids come from traumatic families and have mental health issues.

March 15, 2018: Devonte approaches neighbor in driveway asking for food. After getting food, he returns several times asking for more. Says parents punish kids by withholding food, sometimes days at a time. Asks neighbor to go to store to get a list of food and leave it in a box near the shared driveway on Friday (March 23). Asks neighbor not to call Law Enforcement because he doesn’t want family split up (similar fears of family split in prior CPS investigator notes).

March 23: Devonte returns to neighbors asking for food. They decide to call CPS. CPS arrives at house and sees gold Yukon SUV pull up to house. Does not see any people. CPS knocks on front and back doors with no answer. CPS leaves a card on the door and leave.

March 23: Sarah works a normal shift at Kohl’s from morning to early evening. Last time any witnesses report seeing her. Kohl’s security video shows Sarah leave work at 5:26 PM in her white sedan.

March 24: 2:53 AM, Sarah Hart’s co-worker at Kohl’s gets text saying Sarah is too sick to work that day as scheduled. Co-worker describes text as out of character for Sarah.

March 24: Neighbors report noticing the gold Yukon is not at the house. They also notice bricks from the wall are tipped over. Say unlike family to leave, have never been gone in the past.

March 25: 8:05 AM A female believed to be Jennifer Hart seen on video purchasing food at a Safeway in Fort Bragg, California.

March 26: CPS returns to Woodland house. Notices business card is missing from front door. Gold Yukon is also gone. Puts another card in the door and calls Clark County Sheriff’s Office for a welfare check. Sheriff Deputy arrives, but no answer at the door.

March 26: 1 PM Sarah’s co-worker calls CCSO for a welfare check, concerned she did not show up for work all weekend.

March 26: 3:30 PM Law Enforcement is alerted to vehicle crash in Mendocino County. A recovery effort begins.

March 27: Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office requests welfare check at the Woodland home after determining who crash victims were and children still missing. CCSO checks house, finds residence empty. Animals left behind (3 dogs missing).

March 29: CCSO serves search warrant on house attempting to locate missing children. House appears sterile. Little indication children lived in the home. A Laptop and I-pad are collected. Some financial information found. CCSO also interviews neighbors and co-workers.

March 30: Financial leads show no recent activity or anything over the weekend. No large cash withdrawals or unusual transactions.

April 12: CCSO does additional K-9 search of Hart property in Woodland, WA.

Some of the details of accusations of abuse when the “family” live in Alexandria, Minnesota included deprivation of food that forced the children to “rummage” through garbage cans and “stealing” food from other kids at school.  The Washington Post had reported that school officials ceased notifying the Harts about this activity when they learned that the children were being punished, rather than given more food. A criminal complaint was lodged against Sarah Hart when one of their adopted daughters—six at the time—was found to have numerous bruises on her back and stomach; the girl stated that she had been “spanked,” but the Harts claimed that she had fallen down some stairs.

Sarah Hart eventually admitted that she had “let her anger get out of control” and was found guilty of “domestic” rather than “malicious” assault. But because the Hart women looked “normal” to investigators, they bought their story that it was the children who had “mental health” issues, and that their physical condition was due to being “crack babies.” Child welfare workers eventually closed the Minnesota case.

The Harts then moved to Oregon, where the withholding of food as “punishment” continued. Child welfare workers knew of the allegations in Minnesota, but looked the other way despite reports that the children were forced to lie with sleeping masks over their faces when they were suspected of taking food out of friend’s refrigerator. Oregon investigators eventually decided that despite seven reports of abuse, they did not believe further investigation was “warranted” because they were based on “insufficient data.” The Oregon investigators did note that the children were home-schooled and apparently did not have contact with any “outsiders,” and an “informant” reported that the kids were like “robots” and “deathly afraid” of Jennifer Hart—who on her Facebook page posted “happy” images of the children that were at odds with the reality.

After the move to Washington, the adopted daughter named Hannah tried to contact the neighbor in Woodland about food.  The neighbor reported that he thought that the girl was so small and scrawny that she must be only 7-years-old, but later discovered she was actually 16. He also observed that she appeared to be missing front teeth, and was quite frightened of something.

What do we see here? A “progressive” white couple who see themselves as being morally superior? That they felt the children should be more “appreciative” of them? That they had some “unusual” methods of “punishment”? That the children were so afraid of them that they couldn’t do anything for fear of punishment? I mean, how else could they be punished, besides being permanently “grounded”—since they were otherwise never seen to leave the house. Sure, going to one’s room without supper isn’t “unusual” punishment, but days on end? Note too that nothing was found in the house that suggested that children lived there, meaning no toys or anything a juvenile would have to pass the time.

We will never know what exactly went on in that house, since no one in the “family” spoke about it, save when one of the children complained of deprivation to an “outsider” who decided to contact authorities. It appears that when things got too “hot,” the “family” simply packed-up moved to a new location to start “fresh.” It seems clear that Jennifer and Sarah Hart saw these children as objects to “mold” as they saw fit, not as individuals with their own particular wants and desires. In the end, with yet another “visit” from a child protective services  agency—the third time in three states—the Harts apparently decided that in order to keep the family “together,” the only way to do it was to send all of them into the “next world.” 

As for that photo at the top of the post? That is Devonte Hart. Are those tears actually a cry for help from the police officer, to get him away from his “parents”?

What we see in all three of these cases is denial and failure of responsibility leading to tragedy. In the Trayvon Martin case, his mother and school officials all were in denial about his criminal proclivities, and all they did was kick out the problem “child” to be someone else’s problem. He didn’t learn one single thing by being suspended from school; he might have learned something in a juvenile detention center, where he belonged. Instead, he was given chance after chance to “reform,” and he never did.

In the case of Gabby Petito, her serious mental health issues were apparently treated as nothing more than “eccentric,” but they were serious enough that her own parents couldn’t deal with her—thus their “hope” that Laundrie would “take care of her” for them, without once thinking about the effect it would have on his emotional stability. Had she received any mental health treatment, her behavior may have been mitigated, but for certain a mental health professional would have advised against a trip in an enclosed environment without any friends or family around to lend help in “calming” matters.

In the Hart case, the Texas adoption agency didn’t appear to do any “homework” as to the fitness of the Harts, which of course isn’t surprising being Texas. It is apparent that rather than seeing Jennifer and Sarah Hart as being abusive “parents,” child welfare service workers saw them as “good-hearted” people who were providing black kids with a “supportive” environment, and if they were punishing the kids, well, black kids need more punishment to stay “in line.” If deliberate malnourishment, physical punishment for seeking food, and barring playthings is part of that “supportive” environment, then denial and lack of responsibility on the part of those who should have known better and did not do anything are themselves culpable; doing something just “half-way” only led to tragic results.