"Baby Cheyenne" Returned to Parents in New Hampshire

"Baby Cheyenne," the infant taken from her parents at birth by the state of New Hampshire last week, creating a small national furor among the populist right since the father's association with the Oathkeepers (a constitutionalist group of law enforcers misidentified as a "militia" by the state) was mentioned in the documents listing the reasons for taking the baby (among many other charges--the mother's two previous children from a different father are still being kept in foster care away from her and her boyfriend, Cheyenne's father), has been returned to her parents after a hearing by a judge from Rochester Family Division Court.

Past blogging on the matter here and here, including many quotes and links detailing the accusations against the father and deeply insightful comments threads on the propriety of contemptuous laughter as a response to a mother having her baby taken from her at birth. Jesse Walker on whether decent Americans should be scared of Oathkeepers (answer: no) here.

Comments

[Colin]

A day of great sadness for all the wonderful human beings at Wonkette.

[Rosemary]

I checked out the Wonkette site and they are actually making fun of Doherty and his readers more than those parents. That father, Johnathon Irish, gives you a lot of make fun of though if you think his abusing his children is funny.

[Ken Shultz]

Oh well, I guess it'll be a slow day at Wonkette then.

Oh, but someone they don't like will get cancer or die in a fire...

So, cheer up, Wonkette, there's always hope!

[Ken Shultz]

*edit*

Oh, but [maybe] someone they don't like will get cancer or die in a fire...

You know what I mean.

[Stacy]

Maybe there are some Oathkeepers in NH CPS? Nahh.. Seriously, good for the state - whether they bowed to the pressure or woke up to the badness of their actions, they've displayed a rare-in-today's-gummint ability to admit when they're wrong and make it right(ish)

[MP]

The actions of one judge should not be reflective of the state CPS. I doubt this story is over. CPS will be back.

[Rosemary]

If the father abuses this baby, will the Oathkeepers issue a statement?

[Timon19]

If the father doesn't, (to borrow a phrase) will you issue a statement?

[Rosemary]

Sure!

[Mr. FIFY]

Yes, Rosemary, the Oath Keepers should release a statement, and it should read something like this:

"We had nothing to do with this, and would you fuckstains on the left kindly stop insinuating and lying about our organization? Thank you in advance."

[Dello]

Weren't there accusations of abuse and alcoholism? At least they didn't name the kid Hitler....

[Rosemary]

Yes, the father abused the two older children, his fiancee's children with another man. He abused the first two, it sounds like CPS is betting he got all that out of his system and will be good to this third one, I guess.

[hmm]

You have some documentation on that assertion? Or are you drawing the conclusion from the fact CPS removed the children from the home?

[Rosemary]

Yes, actually. The article in the Concord newspaper and the comments by Irish's own father. His own father thinks his children should be removed by CPS.

[hmm]

According to an affidavit, a judge determined in 2009 that evidence pointed to Irish as "the main suspect" in an assault of his fiancee's oldest son, now 3.

You mean this? Do we have to go over the legal and social definition of "suspect?"

Or this opinion?
Tensions rose when Johnathon Irish's father, John Irish, told a reporter within earshot of Johnathon Irish that his son had spent a portion of his childhood in facilities for juveniles and had gotten in trouble with the law. He added that Johnathon Irish deserved to be scrutinized by the state.

Anything other than that? If not your assertion, "He abused the first two..." is complete and utter bullshit under any legal system or socially acceptable means of deriving guilt or action.

[Rosemary]

Oh, sweetie, your google skills are lacking, aren't they? Try again.

[hmm]

excellent sourcing.

[Rosemary]

No, you flunked. Best start the assignment again, dearie

[hmm]

Still got nuttin' huh.

Well let me know. I'd be interest in seeing what these people have done or what evidence has been brought against them. Until then I'm bound to presume them innocent. Even if they shop at Walmart and live in a trailer.

[Hazel Meade]

It's not hmm's job to do your googling for you.

[Bradley]

You're suggesting that this guy should be punished for child abuse he hasn't committed, based on his past history. By that logic, why should we ever let anyone of jail? Hell, they'll just go off and commit more crimes anyway!

PS: IHBT

[rst]

Is that Wonkette cunt brigade crying now?

[Rosemary]

No, they're actually laughing at you again.

[Mr. FIFY]

You sound like you're proud of that, Rosemary.

But, hey, if you still want to flog the "being an Oath Keeper is what made Irish do what he did" meme, feel free.

[Paul]

C'mon guys, there is some hope and change going on.

Admit it, had this been the duo of Clinton/Reno, the wife would have been shot while holding her baby, standing at the door by ATF agents.

Baby steps... baby steps.

[Libetarian Jerk]

Wonkette, cue the horn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

[Libertarian Jerk]

Spell libertarian right, you twat.

[?]

This is news:

They sat in McDonald's

Restaurant serves man.

I know, it's a highly relevant fact. Lefties might get confused by the giant Truther shirt in the totally non-editorial picture there, and not properly bond in their state-directed hate of these people they don't know. And that's what this story's really about.

[Rosemary]

You have to admit that the gut that shirt is covering is pretty impressive. Should have gotten a picture of it with the McDonald's arches in the background. What is it with these trailer park patriots? If they aren't scrawny meth heads, they're massively fat.

[hmm]

No more impressive than the class warfare mongering, lack of intellect, we are better then them general level of retarded hackery Wonkette covers.

[Rosemary]

Well, I can't claim to speak for wonkette overall. I just found them via Doherty's links. Trailer park patriots, however, i've observed for years at my local WalMart. Lard asses and meth heads.

[hmm]

So you are a class warfare Us v Them moron.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Rosemary]

Oh, you're a knee jerk reactionary who ignores facts. Thanks for clearing THAT up.

Hey, I think your Pizza Rolls are ready!

[hmm]

Toss some facts up there and I will give them their due.

[Rosemary]

Cranky, huh? Burn the pizza rolls?

[hmm]

I'm happy as a lark. And still waiting for a fact.

[Mr. FIFY]

Good call, hmm.

[Fatty Bolger]

"Hey, should we crop that woman on the right in the truther shirt out? It would look a lot better."

"Fuck no! Why do you think we picked that picture?"

[Mark]

Wonkette readers are smart, they know these parents got a high-priced lawyer to plead their case,

OR

The authorities made a mistake in their investigation and the parents got off on a technicality,

OR

This is evidence that President Obama is keeping his promise to restore respect for individual constitutional rights,

OR

*Sigh*

On a side note, is anyone else wondering why the prisoner exchange, ahem, meeting took place in a McDonalds parking lot?

[Mark]

Ah, never mind, just read the rest of the story...

[Timon19]

Steuf continues to miss the point, and actually trots out "government restraint! Settle the fuck down!"

Actually, a single judge performed a check on an agency that could still presumably resume its overreach tomorrow.

What a smug fuckstick.

http://wonkette.com/426646/bab.....ore-426646

[Timon19]

Sweet Jesus, these people are fucked up:

tbogg 104p ? 35 minutes ago
If Irish kills the baby, they should put the little body in a big jar and give it to Brian Doherty as a trophy to keep on his desk. You know, as a conversation starter about the dangers of big government.

Why hasn't Doherty been ostracized by other bloggers over this? I don't understand. The only other blogger who has blasted Reason for its monstrous, callous stupidity is Tom Scocca over at Slate.

You hear that Brian? You're monstrously stupid!

WTF? Doherty has abandoned the brave moral and intellectual clarity he demonstrated in his earlier posts, where he characterized the state's actions as "baby snatching" and that the couple suffered having "their baby stolen by government agents"? Where's his integrity? He continues on this subject as though he has been absolutely pure of purpose and did not screw up in any way by assuming that it's the parents, and not the children who are the real victims we should be worried about. Why isn't he continuing to use that rational, reasonable language to describe new developments? Where's the courage of his convictions that he was so eager to demonstrate a few days ago?

Seriously, why does Doherty still have a job at Reason? He damages what little credibility that outfit has left. Fucking douchebag. Goddammit he makes me sick.

You make her sick!

...deeply insightful comments threads on the propriety of contemptuous laughter as a response to a mother having her baby taken from her at birth.

At this point I'm just going to throw my hands in the air and tell Doherty okay, I give up, you're right, that's EXACTLY what we were laughing about. Keep sucking that baboon cock. Idiot.

Baboon cock!

[Rosemary]

Yeah, they seem to know Doherty pretty well, don't they?

[Timon19]

Yeah...didn't think you were much of a reader. Nor Steuf. Nor the commenters there joyfully stomping around about...I'm not exactly sure what. Their own sense of self-satisfaction?

[Rosemary]

Me, i'm a hardcore Libertarian but Doherty and his fan boys are embarrassing the he'll out of me.

[hmm]

Seriously? A hardcore libertarian? You advocate government taking people's children, enjoy class warefare bullshit with comments about walmart shoppers, and you're willing to pass judgment on an individual on flimsy hearsay. I call bullshit. You either have no clue about individual inalienable rights or you're just trolling.

The third option involves a helmet and drool bib.

[Rosemary]

Not generally. Just when one or both parents are fucktards who abuse children. Belong to a group out of the mainstream? Whatever, dude. Don't abuse the kids, though.

[hmm]

So you only advocate this completely anti-libertarian point of view when it suits your thinly supported view of children. The rest of the time Walmart dwelling trailer park residents are okay.

Nice.

My bullshit detector is smokin'

[Bradley]

0/10

[Mr. FIFY]

Bullshit, Rosemary.

[Rosemary]

Actually, they did a pretty good job of evicerating Doherty. Doherty should have read more about this particular case before taking up the flag. He deserves to be ridiculed for his pearl clutching defense of a child abuser.

[hmm]

Do you have pom poms and a skirt?

[Rosemary]

Does that turn you on?

[hmm]

Sadly no. I require at least some level of intellect from my partners. You probably wouldn't even rate as Vegas one night stand material.

[Rosemary]

Best start trolling the middle school then. You've finally outgrown the playground.

[hmm]

Are you saying the middle schoolers are have a greater intellect than yourself? Otherwise your insult doesn't make much sense.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

[hmm]

no clue where are came from, it might be aliens, or a secret government program

[Rosemary]

Oh sweetie, you missed the point. Go back to chasing pom pons and short skirts on the playground.

[hmm]

It helps to have a point before claiming one is missed.

[prolefeed]

With the right partner, most any costume would work.

With you, probably not.

[Timon19]

He repeatedly updated it and consistently took a tack that had nothing to do with an actual "lionizing" of Oathkeepers, but rather the principle that political affiliation should never factor in to a decision like that.

Apparently, to you and your pals, this means "Reason loves child beaters!!!!!!" That's about the level of sophistication one should expect from a highly partisan site.

[Timon19]

Last sentence should read:

That's about the level of sophistication one should expect from a highly partisan site that manages to dump a libertarian site in with Tea Partiers and conservatives.

[Rosemary]

Yes, in that I possess an actual vagina and am not an inflatable doll.

[hmm]

Congratulations on the vagina.

[hmm]

Can we get a feministing link up in here?

[Rosemary]

No congratulations needed. It's not the novelty to me that it is to you, hon.

[hmm]

Did you really just try to crack a joke about me getting laid? Wow. How do you know I'm not gay or female?

[Mr. FIFY]

"the principle that political affiliation should never factor in to a decision like that"

Exactly. Someone ought to school Rosemary on that aspect.

[Brian Doherty]

I assume anyone who can read and has read the actual things I wrote about this understands why there is no need to say anything further about it. I guess the one thing worth saying is that unlike Wonkette I find some variation in tone to be useful in writing about things over and over again.

[Timon19]

This.

[TBogg]

Your tone varying between "douchey" to "seriously fucked-up". But that's okay, Brian. Even child abusers need champions. Glad to see you take one for the team.

[Mr. FIFY]

Prove Doherty is championing child abuse, TBogg. Or, get the fuck out.

[Rosemary]

Brian,

You defended a guy who had abused his two other kids. I was right there with you on the rights of the parents until I read the background on Irish. Some people do abuse kids and the kids are better off away from them. Perhaps you should talk about that issue, as well. Then the Wonkette brain surgeons won't make such easy fun of you.

[Libertarian Jerk]

He's a suspect in that abuse, and "suspect" does not mean guilty, missy.

Sorry for not making snap judgments without obtaining all the information.

[hmm]

Personally I think you should use caps for emphasis more. Maybe hold a workshop about that when you do Timmeh's alt text work shop. You could fly Jack out to run it.

[Michael]

I'm still completely stumped in trying to figure out what significance Wonkette has, culturally or otherwise.

[Michael's Mom]

Didn't get your money's worth from that home schooling?

[Michael]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Even their trolls aren't funny.

[hmm]

Please don't disparage trolls with that comparison.

[Rosemary]

Yeah, I can see how you wouldn't find home schooling funny. Bit too close to the bone there.

[hmm]

Not really, but nice try. Oddly enough the home schooled individuals I know tend to obliterate most others with respect to general knowledge and ability. Yet another us v. them argument from you. The internet psychologist in me is beginning to think you are projecting.

[Michael]

Actually, it didn't affect me at all considering that I attended public schools and later went on to a decent college paid for in full with my own savings. I don't understand what might be triggering your homeschooling assumption other than it being something you heard somewhere that we libertarians are all into. Nice try though.

[hmm]

As a libertarian it's her duty to segregate all arguments into a basic us verses them level. It's easier to demonize the bad guys and make your argument that way.

That was sarcasm Rose..

[you are all morons]

if mommy and daddy's little angel turns up in the emergency room or the morgue with a fractured skull and a half-dozen new and old subdural hematomas("she fell out of her crib" is the usual explanation), i hope you vile pieces of shit take half a breath before you start screeching about the incompetent cps that couldn't protect an innocent baby from the parents, who were known child abusers.

[Jordan]

And if it doesn't, then kindly shut the fuck up.

[Libertarian Jerk]

So if she doesn't can you kiss my ass?

[Rosemary]

This guy's own father thinks that the kids should be taken away. Some people have the ability to make children, but beyond that the kids would be better off raised by wolves. Child Protective Services was right to take the child away.

[hmm]

Clearly predicating government decisions on information derived from family disputes is the best way to approach these situations.

[Rosemary]

Clearly, using an individual's own history of abusing children and statements by that individual's own relatives regarding that abuse should be disregarded if it provides a good chance for a pearl clutching rant.

[Timon19]

This.

[Timon19]

My this applies to hmm, not the interloper.

Also, since it's one person with a checkered history against another's, there's no basis for taking one side over another, pearl clutching rants or not.

[Timon19]

Gah...I mean to say that both the father and the son have been in trouble with the law and it's word against word. He-said, he-said is no basis for taking sides.

[Rosemary]

Sounds like a fine group to be raising a kid for sure.

[hmm]

I'm not surprised that you're comfortable judging others with little information.

Fire up the pitch fork and torch, we got some class warfare to get to. They need to be put in their place.

[Rosemary]

Thanks for agreeing

[Timon19]

HURR DURR

[P Brooks]

If Irish kills the baby, they should put the little body in a big jar and give it to Brian Doherty as a trophy to keep on his desk. You know, as a conversation starter about the dangers of big government.

When this post went up, I thought of making a snarky comment about how certain I was that nobody would ever secretly hope something bad happens to the baby, just so they could say, "I told you so."

I decided not to, because it wouldn't have been, you know, nice.

[Warty]

Cicada 86p ? 1 hour ago
I honestly can't think of a better standard bearer for the Tea Party than Johnathan Irish. Hoist him high upon your shoulders, True American Patriots?! He is the perfect representative for all you stand for.

Keep pretending you give a shit about the baby, Rosemary, and that you don't just want to laugh at your enemies.

[Rosemary]

I don't believe i've done any laughing over this.

[cicada]

The folks here at Reason and at the Daily Tea Party were falling all over themselves in the rush to make this case into a political football. Baby snatching! Guns! Drool, drooool, droooool.

Live with it, dildo.

[hmm]

I don't think Reason has ever made a political football.

Oddly there really are only 1 or two partisan hacks here and they are pretty much spoofs. Even then John or MNG, who like to call each other partisan hacks, make the Wonkette crew look like koolaid drinking knuckle draggers.

[Mr. FIFY]

Oh, fuck, cicada's back.

Hey, schmuck... tell us again: Would Wonkette have given even half a shit about this story if it *weren't* for the Oath Keepers angle?

I say "no, they wouldn't have". And the more you cretins cross-post your "involvement in Oath Keepers is what drove Irish over the edge" conspiracy bullshit, the more you look like tools of Team Blue.

[Warty]

"Look like"?

[Woman Without a Country]

'And the more you cretins cross-post your "involvement in Oath Keepers is what drove Irish over the edge" conspiracy bullshit...'

What the hell- what comments have you been reading?

It's symptomatic of, not causative.

[Hazel Meade]

The folks here at Reason are pretty consistently against the state seizing people's children, regardless of the political affiliation of the parents.

[Libertarian Jerk]

Try to be funny, you indignant twat.

Go back to the DC gossip dollop.

[NHDCYF]

The state of New Hampshire doesn't have enough money to feed another meth baby. Sorry, we had to give Cheyenne back to the parents to abuse, I mean, raise.

[Richard Cranium]

It's a shame that you need a license to fish but not to have children.

[hmm]

It's a shame that you need a license to fish but not to have children.

Fixed.

[Herd of independent minds]

It's a shame that...

[Randy Paul]

Maybe when Cheyenne turns up dead, they can convince the jury that it was caused by the invisible hand of the free market?

[hmm]

I was thinking we could blame government failure?

[Mr. FIFY]

"Maybe when Cheyenne turns up dead, they can convince the jury that it was caused by Irish's involvement in the Oath Keepers, and no other factor?

There, that's much better. It would help if you just come out and say what you're really thinking, Wonketteers.

[PleaseHitMeAgainDaddy]

Aww look, Dickhead Doherty trying to claim victory and cover again his voluminous ass when its discovered that the state continues to protect helpless children from a serial-abusing shitbag who keeps company with other abusive men who consider their daughter's bodies their property. What a fucking tool you are.

[No]

I think you are confusing Oath Keepers with Promise Keepers.

[Mr. FIFY]

"keeps company with other abusive men"

Proof of Oath Keepers equaling "abusive men", please.

[Libertarian Jerk]

Pedantry and stupidity!

Do any of you fucking people read details about the case? And would you self-righteous cunts at Wonkette have even fathomed talking about this story if it weren't for the Gate Keepers angle?

[a model citizen]

can we just talk for a minute about how this dude is drawing a check from the gub'mint for his messed-up eye - but doesn't seem to let it get in the way of his gun hobby? if they dude can see well enough to shoot, i don't know how why he can't get a job at wal-mart. hell, he could go get a job at a gun shop!

looks like the state will be paying for little cheyenne's upbringing either way. too bad daddy's too busy playing soldier to bother actually, you know, PROVIDING for his offspring.

and as someone who has worked with children in out-of-home care, let me just say that the kids i saw could've benefitted from SOONER CPS intervention. it's still beyond my comprehension how some supposed humans can be so sadistic to little children. the system isn't perfect, but damn, neither are most parents.

ps TRUCKNUTZ

[hmm]

You're gonna a find it difficult getting people here to oppose not paying entitlements.

[a model citizen]

yeah, it just gets overlooked when it doesn't fit the narrative.

[Timon19]

That aspect of the story has nothing to do with Doherty's premise. Your post was a giant irrelevance.

[TNZ]

A giant elephant? Just ignore it.

[Timon19]

What does him drawing a check for a "disability" have to do with CPS using his political affiliation as a factor in seizing his fiance's kid?

[TNZ]

His affiliation with the Oathkeepers, a jerkoff political group with a grudge, was just one more red flag, an indicator to them that the man is unstable.

It makes you wonder how many libertarian, tea party, pro-gun, militia, conspiracy nuts are living on welfare dollars while playing Nathan Hale and Thomas Paine. If you take the money from the government, you owe a debt to society. You owe it to be a good citizen, not a whiney anti-government screwup.

The big, evil government stole our baby!

Which government, the same one that gave you money to feed you baby and buy guns?

Yeah, that one.

[hmm]

If you take the money from the government, you owe a debt to society.

indentured servitude FTW!

You owe me boy.

[hmm]

Wait don't we have these entitlement programs to help people?

So, now the people we help owe us because we helped them? That's not very nice or altruistic. Next you'll be demanding they convert religion their political belief to get help. Not a lot of compassion up in that kind of thinkin'

[Mr. FIFY]

I like how TNZ only points to a group that isn't left-wing, and uses the term "jerkoff political group with a grudge".

That phrase would fit MoveOn just as well. Better, in some ways. Which just shows the Team Blue mentality of "hey, when WE do it, it's okay".

[Hazel Meade]

His affiliation with the Oathkeepers, a jerkoff political group with a grudge, was just one more red flag, an indicator to them that the man is unstable.

Man, that is a revolting comment.
How would you like it if the government used affiliation with, oh say, a 9-11 truth group, as a factor in seizing a child?

It's completely fucking appalling that ANY political activity be ever remotely connected to having a baby taken. And a newborn one at that. They literally took the baby away from it's mother in the hospital immediately after it was born.

The idea that the dad's political activities could in any way be connected to having a woman's child seized makes me sick. And that fact that a person who considers themselves enlightened and morally superior defends it, makes me even sicker.

[Libertarian Jerk]

A jerkoff political group with a grudge is a justifiable rationale for seizing children now?

Start rounding up the Code Pink and MoveOn kids!

[TNZ]

A jerkoff political group that collects guns and has a grudge with the government. If they were a legitimate organization, they would distance themselves from drugged up child molesting psychos such as Johnathon Irish. Instead, they've made Irish their poster boy. So don't be surprised when the Feds start putting Oathkeepers in jail, mkay?

[Rosemary]

It's nice of you to continue defending Doherty. He has even stopped himself.

[hmm]

I'm bored, and not really defending him. He can do that himself. I'm just enjoying poking holes in your weak arguments.

[Angry Geometer]

Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger would like to speak to you about your ability to poke holes in arguments.

In particular, your comment above at 10:26PM is one of the dumbest things ever written in the history of the internet.

[hmm]

Hey!

That's my line. Don't worry your secret is safe with me. It's not about the helping and all about the control.

[hmm]

It wasn't a part of the discussion. Oddly throwing mud or shit at a wall to make an argument look bad only works when the mud or shit is relative to the argument.

No one here supports whole heartedly entitlements. So the point is pretty much a non-starter around these parts.

[a model citizen]

oh, and one other thing: you may not like wonkette's sense of humor, but i can't think of anything more grossly cynical than using a sad story like this to score some cheap, lame political point.

[anarch]

Please supply a way to make a political point without using a sad story.

[anarch]

Plus, here's the sad principle to what (I'm told) Kant called the tragedy of history: People who seek power don't deserve it.

[Timon19]

What cheap political point was Doherty trying to score?

What cheap political point was Wonkette writ large trying to score?

Are you that tone deaf?

[Rosemary]

The wonkette seems mostly to be making fun of Doherty.

[hmm]

That's because on the subject at hand, they like you don't have a leg to stand on. So ad hom away.

[Rosemary]

Doherty screwed up. He can post all the follow ups he likes, but he ended making a right fool of himself and embarrassing people with an actual brain who are Libertarians.

[hmm]

A vagina and a brain. And a Libertarian! Were you made in a secret lab somewhere?

I'll have to admit I'm having a hard time believing the last two assertions.

[amused wonketteer]

You're still in high school, aren't you?

[hmm]

Ya, that's it. No really.

I have some guilty pleasures. Trolling certain people happens to be one of them. I'm so ashamed.

[Hazel Meade]

Actually, he didn't. The affadavit did, in fact, mention the dad's gun collection and membership in Oath Keepers.

[Woman Without a Country]

Are you? Apparently.

[Mr. FIFY]

Hey, citizen, Wonkette was using Irish's involvement in Oath Keepers to score a cheap, lame political point.

Otherwise, Wonkette wouldn't have even commented on the story in the first place.

[Question Authority]

Child Protective Services wouldn't make a mistake. If they say that baby is in danger, that's all I need to know.

[amused wonketteer]

Rosemary,

I've enjoyed watching you spar with the fanboys on this thread. They're definitely out of their league in trying to outwit you, so it's a bit like watching a cat cruelly toy with a mouse for 30 minutes or so before devouring it! 😉

Doherty initially made an ass of himself by rushing to characterize the State of New Hampshire's actions as "baby snatching" and the parents as having "their baby stolen by government agents" before he knowing all the facts about the case.

In his rush to portray the State of New Hampshire as an evil oppressor, Doherty focused on a mention of the Oath Keepers, which may or may not have indicated discrimination based on the father's political affiliations -- it's impossible to determine from the limited info available, and he simultaneously glossed over the available info that indicated the state indeed had considerable evidence to warrant concern over the infant's safety.

Then, when Doherty was criticized (via satire) for rushing to conclusions about this case, he doubled down on his obtuse, one-sided interpretation, complete with pre-conceived-yet-unsubstantiated motives on the part of the state, while accusing critics of mocking the parents only because they're seen as poor, undeducated, anti-government stereotypes, instead of acknowledging the real reason for the mocking -- that the young couple appear to be irresponsible, lazy, and eager to blame the "oppressive state" for the sad consequences in their lives. Doherty chose to ignore his ridiculous mistake and instead focus on those "elitist liberals'" so-called "class-based" mockery. Whatever.

You seem to be intellectually honest. Beware Reason Magazine if you have libertarian sensibilities and are looking for valuable insights produced through earnest analysis and intellectual honesty. What I've seen of these people is a LOT of confirmation-biased pseudo analysis, and lately -- outright hackery -- from the current staff at Reason.

[hmm]

Wow, confirmation bias, from a guy praising someone who is willing to go from suspect to guilty on nothing. And you come here claiming confirmation bias with some silly concern troll? Do your nuts ride shotgun? Cause they have to be huge.

Your post is funny. Ever spot you claim a bias against government you can insert the person or child and you would have the Wonkette article. But that's just satire right? So it's okay to be a class warfare hack it it's satire.

A lot of recent posters like to use the phrases:

- these people
- they
- those people

I did enjoy the warning though. Very halloweenish of you.

Beware Reason Magazine...oooooo hahhhahahhh

Arrogant fucktard.

[amused wonketteer]

Where did I go from "suspect to guilty"? I didn't. I said the state had ample cause for concern. I also said that the state's mention of Irish's proclaimed membership in the Oath Keepers may or may not indicate discrimination against Irish based on his political affiliations, but it's impossible to determine based on the information available to the public. I didn't declare guilt of anyone involved in this case, nor did I imply any guilt through use of loaded terms like "baby snatched" or "baby stolen from".

As for the Wonkette site, I won't try to defend any commenter there other than myself. But the Wonkette website is an unabashedly harsh and nasty place, especially when criticizing hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, callousness toward the welfare of the powerless or defenseless (such as gay teens and infants), and so on. It may very well look to you like a group of rude, cruel elitists. Whatever. I really couldn't care less. Even if you're right, it doesn't diminish the errors Doherty and fanboys like you continue to make here.

[Hazel Meade]

the state's mention of Irish's proclaimed membership in the Oath Keepers may or may not indicate discrimination against Irish based on his political affiliations

The fact that it was even mentioned is indicative of prejudice.

[amused wonketteer]

Oh, yeah. And regarding your comment about concern trolling: again I say "whatever."

Rosemary's the only libertarian on this thread who isn't more concerned with her feelings of self-righteousness than she is in thinking critically and being rational. I like Rosemary. She seems to be worthy of more than the level of engagement you and Timon19 offer.

[hmm]

Clearly.

[Timon19]

Rosemary's as libertarian as the love child of Barack Obama and W.

[Libertarian Jerk]

Gate Keepers affiliation was all that pompous hack Stuef was talking about and he was sneering at the parents.

Doherty bitch-slapped him and ocntinues to do so.

[hmm]

A guy praising. You are praising Rosemary and she is willing to go from suspect to guilty with no evidence. This is something you would have read since you were willing to praise her for wit and being out of our league. Or were you just following a herd mentality and blindly agreeing with her? Reading comprehension is fundamental around here.

As for the hanging out on the mean internet streets of Wonkette silliness and the high-mindedness of the Wonkette commentors "criticizing hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, callousness toward the welfare of the powerless or defenseless (such as gay teens and infants), and so on.. Give me a fucking break. That statement is hilarious. First we defend it as satire and now you're some sort of white knight crusading force fighting injustice. Jesus christ, do you have a fucking spandex suit and cape in your closet? Or some plate mail an a cardboard sword you swing around declaring victory over the internet oppressors? The site's a joke, It's semi funny on occasion, but most of the time it panders to the lowest common denominator of the left in a pathetic attempt at humor. You aren't defending, fighting, protecting, or helping anyone. You're playing the US v. Them game and it's hilarious. Fanboy? I'm not the one claiming some sort of moral high ground defending teh gays and oppressed while arguing someone was wrong to point out a connection that has been proven to exist and then having the integrity to continue to update the article as things change. Rather than write a satirical article, or at least that's what we are calling it, that was wrong full of shitty information and blatantly designed to be a class warfare piece and not correcting any mistakes. The moron even tried to back it up here and had his ass handed to him. Not to mention his going straight to the "lol you're fat and ugly" when he looks like the fucking stay puft man after a three month McD's bender.

You don't look like rude cruel elitists. You look like idiots, and not lol internet idiots.

You care enough to post two walls of text. So I'll assume that comment was some sort of defense mechanism to protect yourself from looking even dumber.

[amused wonketteer]

Oh! I misunderstood. You meant that Rosemary went "from suspect to guilty." I was confused -- I thought you were saying that I had done that. (In my defense, your writing isn't very clear.) No, I don't think Rosemary has firmly decided the guy is guilty, but she's at least willing to acknowledge that the state may have had legitimate cause for concern over the infant's safety. She's also able to keep the issue of the child's safety distinct in her mind from the additional complication of discrimination that the state may or may not be guilty of. So, yeah, I praise Rosemary for that stuff.

"You care enough to post two walls of text. So I'll assume that comment was some sort of defense mechanism to protect yourself from looking even dumber."

Nah. I'm just bored and getting a little enjoyment from provoking your indignant and emotional retorts so laden with psychological projection it's comical.

Like I said, I won't defend anyone at Wonkette but myself. I make snark to cope with meanness and stupidity I see around me. I don't give a rat's ass if you or anyone else sees it as high-minded or rude slop. Reason, however, presents itself as being proud of its dedication to critical thinking and... well... reasoning. Doherty (and you) failed here.

[hmm]

Saweet. You're an internet psychologist too. I try, but I just can't get the hang of it. So, why can't I get the phrase "A dingo took my baby out of my head?"

She outright said,

Yes, the father abused the two older children, his fiancee's children with another man. He abused the first two, it sounds like CPS is betting he got all that out of his system and will be good to this third one, I guess.

Would like to alter your assertion, or are you going to hold your ground as she did?

[amused wonketteer]

Yes, I know projection when I see it. Your comments are flagrant examples.

As for your quote from Rosemary, I assumed she made her statement based on the report from the Concord Monitor, which Doherty cited in a previous post.

From the Concord Monitor: "...According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor's two other children." Also, "...The affidavit also says that the police in Rochester report a 'lengthy history of domestic violence' between Taylor and Irish, and that she accused him of choking and hitting her on more than one occasion. According to the document, Irish failed to complete a domestic violence course as ordered by the state, and that a hearing was held last month to terminate Taylor's parental rights over her two older children."

The second sentence in your citation of Rosemary's comment sounds like very dark humor to me. You must have trouble recognizing it.

[hmm]

Go ahead and head on upthread. Then come on back down and explain it to me.

Because clearly I don't get it.

There is some irony to be had here though, citing a judge decision to take two children as proof and disputing a judges decision to return a child. Bit of a conflict there.

I didn't notice the first reference to a judge in the first article, the fact that disputing one ruling while endorsing another from the same system is kind a pretty hard position to defend. Not to mention that as I have said before I won't pass judgment on the guy since most of the information is not available, my problem is with the relative easy Wonkette and people like you are willing to pass judgment. The article linked hear appears to imply the previous ruling is being disputed and still ongoing. So you know holding a hearing concerning termination and termination are two different things. while it takes a significant showing to actual get to the level of considering termination, the article makes no reference to how far this case has gone. As far as we know it was the initial hearing, which means termination could or could not happen. So again, there seems to be a bias towards the courts here on the part of the Wonkette crew rather than a bias towards innocents of the accused.

Maybe you guys should read it a little closer and do some more intellectually honest critical thinking about the articles and situation? Since that's what ya'll do.

[Woman Without a Country]

'I didn't notice the first reference to a judge in the first article, the fact that disputing one ruling while endorsing another from the same system is kind a pretty hard position to defend.'

*Sigh* Ever hear of the little phrase, 'ruling on a case by case basis'?

[hmm]

Ever heard of rule of law? By your account the parents are abusing two children, but not the latter? Which is most probable to be the cause of the difference in opinion, the fact there are two judges, or the fact the cases involving the same people and situations are different?

Ya.*sigh*

[Woman Without a Country]

Your first question makes no sense in this context- I was explaining details of 'rule of law.'

As for the rest, yes, it is quite likely the cases would be different. Judging on a case by case basis means that evidence from one case cannot be carried over into another (unless the defense 'opens the door', but that's a whole 'nother issue we'll save for a rainy day). For example, if you had evidence that Child A was whipped with an extension cord, you could not use it to have Child B removed from the home. It doesn't matter if you know that Child B was also whipped; if there isn't enough evidence, Child B stays. And this is typical of the way these cases usually play out- some siblings are removed while others are left to experience further abuse.

[hmm]

Okay. So same parents, same charges, two different judges, two different rulings. Clearly.

Mistreatment of one child (severe mistreatment is usually needed) is grounds in the family courts I've dealt with for removal of other children, but not enough for a termination of rights of the uninvolved child.

I think you're either conflating removal with termination or full of shit.

[Brian Doherty]

Mistake I made in this thread: A plural/possessive reverse on "babies."

What else I did in this thread: gave a full accounting of a public controversy, with all the available public evidence, for my readers who cared.

What I did not do: Decide that I already knew who was guilty of what in the matter.

Presumption I came in with: That having a baby taken from a mother on day of birth is a serious and tramautic thing, not to be done except for the most vital reasons.

Another presumption I came in with: Mentioning political affiliation in a document of reasons defending the taking of a child is illiberal and to be condemned.

Value judgement I made: That the comment thread in Wonkette's first post on this was mean-spirited and based on a lot of class and political animus. You can go read that thread for yourself and decide if you agree. And I don't think any human would just write it off as "funny"---there is really no humor involved, it's all just witless hateful contempt. (One exception: the guy who quoted the Dukes of Hazzard opening in relation to Irish--that was clever, a bit. The rest? Again, you make your own call.)

My sin in the eyes of Wonkette appears to be that I did not leap to the value judgement everyone at Wonkette made--that the couple in question ought to have their child taken from them. When I didn't leap to the judgement the state seemed to have made, I was a fat, ugly hack who screwed up. When the state also decided that the judgement of Wonkette Assembled was mistaken, it did not sway a single one of them in the slightest. Whether this gives credence to my presumption that their concern was based more on class and political animus then a cold, hard look at the facts is something the reader can decide.

I am more than aware that attempting to be serious and stick to what was actually said in what is a ritual attack on outsiders is useless. And that nothing I said above wasn't obvious to anyone who read any of what I wrote to begin with. This is for people who might just be reading this last round.

[hmm]

Way to mess up my Friday night scotch (did you know they are selling Cardhu in the US again!) and trolling session by gettin' all serious. Now I'll have to find another outlet for my juvenile antics.

[B-Ro]

My sin in the eyes of Wonkette appears to be that I did not leap to the value judgement everyone at Wonkette made

Nah. Wonkette typically don't bother with columnists and bloggers - they have more than enough primary-source targets to keep them busy. Your sin in the eyes of Wonkette was, well, attacking Wonkette. You only have to look as far as the headline in the first Wonkette response: "[Brian Doherty] Accuses Your Wonkette..."

The difference in value judgment was just the obvious line of counterattack.

[Brian Doherty]

One other point I forgot that seems to have been a point of contention: I used everyday moral language to apply to the actions of a state entity, something I do on occasion as a bit of a rhetorical shock to the system. (that is, when someone comes in and takes someone's baby under threat of force, that can be called snatching the baby.) It annoys and confuses non-libertarians for the most part, and I don't do it much, so I didn't keep slamming that point home over and over in later iterations on this topic, which also apparently upset some Wonketters.

[hmm]

For some reason I can't get a the phrase "A dingo took my baby." out of my head with respect to this incident.

[amused wonketteer]

Using loaded terms like "baby snatched" and "their baby stolen by agents of the government" are simply your every day moral language, and don't betray any preconceived notions on your part, huh? Just a rhetorical shock to the system that's annoying and confusing to non-libertarians? Bullshit. You're trying to say that using this language simply amounts to a libertarian idiosyncrasy and not a rushed and foolish characterization of the state's motives when you had no way of being certain what those motives were. I considered myself a libertarian for many years, and I never had to explain any of my verbal idiosyncrasies in order to have other non-libertarian humans understand my meaning.

[hmm]

You mean like when those phrases were used in the Wonkette article? Where those loaded terms were used? Doh, I forgot. That was satire and in no way some sort of class warfare us versus them bash on a political movement. But when someone else uses them the context completely changes.

There seems to be a lot of self identifying libertarians coming out of the woodwork on this one. I can't stand the whole purity thing, but defending any mention of a political group in a decision or document associated with the taking of a child seems pretty cut and dry as far as libertarian philosophies go.

As I said in an earlier post. Who cares what the motives were. You don't have to defend the individual to denounce the presence of the information about Oath Keepers in the documents.

[amused wonketteer]

"Doh, I forgot. That was satire and in no way some sort of class warfare us versus them bash on a political movement."

No, what you forgot is the two times I told you that I won't try to defend any comments on Wonkette other than my own. Now I've told you three times.

And, for the third time, regardless of what you think of Wonkette, Doherty (and you) screwed up from the very beginning, failed to reason through your preconceived notions, and continue to refuse to acknowledge it.

[hmm]

It wasn't a comment. It was the article that used those phrases. If you aren't defending the article then you're just upset that someone here wrote an article pointing out the relatively clear level of hackery in the article from Wonkette?

I reasoned through the article fine. You're the one endorsing people moving from suspect to guilty and making vague assertions about language and never having a need to clarify along with the apparent long history of Wonkette's defense of the down trodden and vicious intellectual conversation.

So to recap, you won't defend Wonkette, admire their harsh and cutting edge defense of the down trodden and those in need of defense, and you think you're the only one here that's right.

You're not an elitist. You're fuckin' delusional.

[amused wonketteer]

Okay. I've belabored my point and you continue to ignore it. I'm going to be elitist here and say that I am done with engaging with you.

You've given plenty of opinions about me as a human being ("you're fuckin' delusional," "arrogant fucktard", etc.), so I'll return the courtesy. My impression is that you're willfully obtuse, and you jump to conclusions about others' motives just as much as your "enemies" do, but you lack the honesty or maturity to admit it.

[hmm]

You're point. The one where you won't defend wonkette comments, will praise them, apparently won't defend wonkette articles, but will disparage articles disparaging Wonkette articles (that isn't necessarily wrong or misguided), the point that you will endorse the idea that a suspect is guilty, proclaim you and Wonkette as the defenders of all those poor people that need defending and so on...

Seriously. I'm the one being obtuse? You've managed to hit every elitist point in a totally awesome smug fashion and then claim to not be elitist. You play around with backhanded challenges and vague insults and don't even have the fortitude to call a spade a spade.

Do you have the maturity to admit your either an elitist (already admitted) and most likely delusional.

I did love the mean streets of Wonkette (with their harsh comments section) defenders of truth endorsement for Wonkette commentors. You were setting yourself up quite well there. Talk about maturity. I don't think I've blow my own horn that much during interviews. It was masterfully elitist and smug.

Don't presume you are my enemy you arrogant twat. At the risk of being elitist I don't think you have what it takes to pose a threat to me and therefore would never rise to the level of an enemy.

(see what I did there?)

[Woman Without a Country]

Calm down there, Dwight.

But if it makes you feel better, I'll admit to being elitist in that I don't think stupidity is a valid line of argument.

[hmm]

I don't care what you admit to? It's pretty elitist to assume I give a shit.

The sad thing is I had to point that out to you.

[Woman Without a Country]

Oh come on, it's glaringly obvious that you desperately long for an enemy.

[TNZ]

It's kind of hard to reason with them since they all pray to the Aqua Buddha.

[Mr. FIFY]

Drink!

Oh, wait, you don't know what triggers that phrase. Too bad for you.

[Brian Doherty]

At this point I remember again: it's Wonkette, they are just fucking with us. Because there is no way you can be serious in repeating that I "screwed up" about this, in the face of what I actually wrote and my repetitive summation of what I wrote.
For the very last time: what they did was snatch a baby. That is absolutely and completely and factually what they did. Of course they thought they had reasons for it. And I listed them all from the first, to the extent I knew them as the story unfolded. I STARTED with the reasons everyone at Wonkette liked to stress, THEN mentioned Oathkeepers. I hid nothing at all relevant to anyone who cared about the context. I just failed to declare the guy guilty from an armchair a continent away based on statements by his adversaries in an adversarial process. In a later update, I listed all the state's reasons as quoted from the Monitor at greater length then Wonkette ever did.
And you are saying I screwed up, and the people who universally, with little data, and much witless hatred, came to a judgment that THE JUDGE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CASE DISAGREED WITH, deciding to give the child back to the parents, and yet still never budged an inch in their opinions---those are not the people who screwed up. Got it. OK, Wonkette folk can be funny, I admit it.

[Angry Geometer]

You tried to frame a tragic situation as a cheap political point for your side. You took the side of convicted child abusers over the side of the children because the child abusers hate paying taxes as much as you do.

When called out on it, you keep pretending like you did nothing wrong by taking cherry-picked evidence from "Prison Planet" and doing no more followup of your own. Do you have the ability to reason? Are you a journalist? You showed no journalistic ability or ability to reason here.

When showed to be an incompetent hack and properly shamed for your complete failure both in your chosen profession and as a moral or rational human being, you engaged in the usual response that weak-minded people do -- wild dissembling to fight the pain of cognitive dissonance.

I guess you do whatever it takes to be able to fall asleep at night, right?

[hmm]

I think you may have regained your dumbest line in the history of the internets title. The force is strong in this one.

[Timon19]

Second part of the second sentence in the first paragraph is fucking hilarious if this weren't about such an ugly situation.

[Mr. FIFY]

"You tried to frame a tragic situation as a cheap political point for your side... when it was we at Wonkette who used the Oath Keepers membership as a cheap political point for OUR side."

There, that's much better.

[TNZ]

Wonkette doesn't need to make you guys look bad. You're doing a fine job by yourself.

[Hazel Meade]

You tried to frame a tragic situation as a cheap political point for your side. You took the side of convicted child abusers over the side of the children because the child abusers hate paying taxes as much as you do.

A) As if Reason doesn't frequently oppose the overzealous actions of child protective agencies in taking children away, all the time. Reason was way out ahead against the governments actions in the FLDS case, despite the fact that they are our political enemies.

B) Tragic situation? That was exactly Doherty's point. Wonkette thought that it was food for comedy because some mouth-brewathing tea-parties felt persecuted, just because of the small fact that they brought up his political activities to justify taking the child.

Hahaha. So funny when the state thinks your politics are a reason to assume you're a child abuser. At least it's funny when you're an ignoramus on the other size of the political spectrum.

[TBogg]

"I used everyday moral language to apply to the actions of a state entity, something I do on occasion as a bit of a rhetorical shock to the system."

Libertarian, please...

Face it Brian. You jumped the gun and assumed the (to your mind) worst; that the eeevil government specifically "snatched the baby" because of Oath Keepers when it was really about a history of violence by Irish.

In your weak-ass attempt to make a cheap political point you seem to have disregarded the welfare of a child. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to laziness as opposed to maliciousness. Either way I guess you can chalk up anything bad that happens later on to collateral damage in The Great War For Freedom if it helps you to sleep at night.

And, seriously, drawing information from Prison Planet? You might as well do research on Black History Month at Stormfront.

[Mr. FIFY]

No, TBogg. You and your ilk played up the Oath Keepers angle, to score political points against the bulk of the right-of-center part of the populace.

Just 'fess up. You'll feel better.

[Michael]

Hey, Wonketteers! If you can find the search bar on this page type in "Sheriff Arpaio", "pregnant" and "shackles". It will take you to an article or two about another abuse of power which I'm sure you will find equally hilarious just in case this one has already lost its grip on your flea brained attention.

[Angry Geometer]

You're really arguing that taking children away from child abusers is an abuse of power? And that's what Wonkette is laughing at?

We were making fun of you for taking the side of child abusers over the side of children. Yeesh. Are you actually that stupid, or are you just being fatuous because you have nothing else to go with?

[Mr. FIFY]

Bullshit. No one here was taking the side of child abuse. That shit ain't funny.

[Hazel Meade]

How about bringing child abuse charges in court and locking the Dad up?

Wouldn't that be preferable to taking the mom's kids away, while leaving the father free to continue abusing HER?

[Woman Without a Country]

You aren't very familiar with our justice system are you?

While you may be able to prove a crime was committed, it doesn't necessarily follow that you'll ever be able to collect the amount of substantive evidence required to convict the guilty party. In fact, many times you can't, which is why most cases never make it to court.

In other words, while you might know who did it, you have to be able to *prove* who did it.

See the problem with your solution to child abuse?

(Not to mention that the court system is notorious for bending over backwards to protect parents' rights. I add this well-known fact because, going by the rhetoric around here, you'd think 'the government' is just salivating for babies, and the attendant costs of wresting them away, providing for their upkeep, etc.)

[Hazel Meade]

So, you're arguing that parents should NOT be proven guilty in a court of law before having their kids seized.

That right?

[Warty]

Fuck, what a smugstorm. I haven't seen this much oh-so outraged sarcasm in a long time.

[Timon19]

Is there any metal for the occasion?

[hmm]

The official scotch is Cardhu. I'd name the official cigar, but I smoked an Anniversario 64 and an Oliva. So maybe a shared position.

[Warty]

So smug and oh so certain
That yours is the enlightened state of mind

Bonus for the song title.

[SF]

Tin

[P Brooks]

Using loaded terms like "baby snatched" and "their baby stolen by agents of the government" are simply your every day moral language, and don't betray any preconceived notions on your part, huh?

Yeah, Brian; it's not like that sort of thing ever happened before.

[Hazel Meade]

I've also noted that none of the Wonketters posting here have provided a shred of evidence that Irish actually abused the other two kids other than the fallacious appeal to authority of the state having taken them, and a couple of "my son is a bad man!" statements fron his dad.

That appears to be the original point hmm was making. They were all just assuming that OF COURSE the government must be right.

So, would it not be nice to have that backed up with at least SOME coverage of what the original abuse consisted of?

Also, I'd like to see some rationale presented for why it is just for the mother to lose access to her children because of her boyfriends actions.

[hmm's wife/doctor]

Don't give hmm any credit for his scotch fueled trolling. We're trying to cure him of this disease.

[Libertarian Jerk]

How can he troll when this is the site he comments on normally in support of the articles?

[hmm]

The art of trolling is relative to the poster. Not the site. Therefore, certain posters wondering this way who persist on saying stupid shit are often too much for some people to resist trolling. Or just plain messing with. While support is one thing, and trolling another they are not mutually exclusive and the combination of the two can be loads of drunken fun.

(scotch does not evaporate out of keyboards like rubbing alcohol and will make the keyboard sticky...That's the story I'm going with)

[hmm]

or wandering...

[Hazel Meade]

Another side point...

If it's been proven that Irish abused the kids, why has he not been charged with assault? Or something to that effect?

Why is the punishment for having an abusive boyfriend having your kids taken away ... and the boyfriend left free? Seriously, WTF?

Charge him with child abuse. Don't punish the mom.

[Libertarian Jerk]

Wonkette doesn't care. There, it's guilty until proven innocent in regard to this guy.

[Anon]

From RidleyReport.com

Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats

After using Oath Keepers affiliation as one excuse for taking a baby, New Hampshire's child protective division is now the target of a possible lawsuit. Oath Keepers is a group of current/former military/police who pledge they won't follow unconstitutional orders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwxLUUkZnU4

[hmm]

More power to em'

Hope they bankrupt the department and the tax payers get to pay for it. Then maybe people will take a closer look at those they have deemed their keepers.

[Otis the Town Drunk]

TRUCKnutz!

[White Trash]

They are the best peoples in serciety!

[did you rush to judgment?]

I think you all should listen to this:

Click on the October 12 program

http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/callToDecision/archives.php

I think Oath Keepers and Reason have been played. Worse -- you granted your honor to a guy who's using your prestige, combined with your lack of knowledge, to provide cover for his bad behavior. In this case, where the child may have to bear the ultimate consequences, and that doubles your shame.