ACS's War on Cultural Diversity.
Rhetoric is the most powerful means of propaganda. Though most Americans think of the Nazi, Soviet or other overt forms of propaganda, in reality, the majority of propaganda is rather subtle.
The campaign of propaganda, whose goal is a culturally homogeneous society, is a clear example of this style of propaganda. Purposely directed against the immigrant, poor or working class, and single parents by NYC's makes this apparent.
Due to the fact that only the poorest and most vulnerable families are targeted, the reality behind the rhetoric is all but invisible to public at large save to a few outspoken attorneys, and fearless Pro Se litigants.
To understand both, rhetoric and reality, we will look at both and in that order.
Despite the known benefits of co-sleeping & it being a world wide practice, ACS has a full blown propaganda campaign against the practice. The campaign was brought to public attention, for those who pay attention, via billboards and ads in the subways. It is a tangible example of ACS's unspoken goal of a homogeneous culture in NYC.
Deeper and more explicit examples of this goal make up the bulk of ACS's guide for parents. They show that within NYC there are target families:
The Poor, Those Parents with a Chronic Illness, Immigrants, Families with a Strong Religious Conviction.
The guide comes in a "Q & A" format in which hypothetical parents ask questions that "expose" their abuse or neglect. Yet, these questions illustrate that the target families mentioned above are, INDEED, targets!
Sometimes I keep my eldest child home from school to help me with her brothers and sisters. What’s the problem? My parents beat me and I turned out all right. A little spanking here and there never hurt anyone. I can’t always provide adequate housing, clothing or food for my children. This is not a crime! I get stressed out and need time alone; sometimes I take out my anger on the kids. I’m only human. Because of my religious beliefs, I don’t believe in seeking medical help for my children or myself. I have the right to choose my religious practice!
The examples above, other than showing how the ACS has specific targeted specific segments of the population, they are ALL subject to interpretation and, if taken from real quotes, can be due to a given set of circumstances during a short timeframe. Though other aspects of the parents life are not given, it could be that if given, would outweigh any "abuse or neglect".
If the reality was that there is no incentive to take children, then, perhaps questions as these and the rest in the ACS's guide for parents can be accepted.
However, there is a CLEAR financial incentive for ACS/CPS workers to remove children from "danger" (danger is, in reality, ever present and to believe that hazards can be removed from life is naïve at best). The Adoption and Safe Families Act creates the financial incentive to not only have children removed, but to have them ADOPTED.
Financial incentive aside, the cultural norms expressed by stating that the opposite of them constitute abuse or neglect are chilling. For a city that, at times, prides her self on "diversity" or being a "sanctuary" to turn loose the claws of the Family Court system on families because they CHOOSE to instill an "alien" set of values, values which were at one time desirable, exposes the reality of what is planned for it's inhabitants and the designed culture it seeks to create.