Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Here is an interesting column from Dick Morris, who predicts that Hillary is about to take the gloves off and get muddy in the battle for Iowa. Few people know the Clinton's as well as Morris, so I think this makes for a good read.

If there are any Stephen King fans out there, brace yourself. This is what the horror icon recently said in a Time magazine interview: "So I said something to the Nightline guy about waterboarding, and if the Bush administration didn't think it was torture, they ought to do some personal investigation. Someone in the Bush family should actually be waterboarded so they could report on it to George. I said, I didn't think he would do it, but I suggested Jenna be waterboarded and then she could talk about whether or not she thought it was torture."

King's request went unchallenged by the reporter doing the interview, who promptly asked King about Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. No kidding. Read the interview here.

And I'm very interested to see where this one goes. The Mass. state legislature is pondering a law that would make spanking children illegal. The proposed law "would ban corporal punishment, including spanking, in all cases for children under 18 unless it is to save them from danger. Parents would face charges of abuse or neglect..." I would like to hear from people in Massachusetts, a state that is beginning to rival California when it comes to liberal insanity.

The law has been proposed by a Democrat (surprise!) and will be debated tomorrow morning. If this passes, it will without a doubt represent the greatest assault on parental rights since the courts gave children the right to abort a pregnancy without informing the parents. The Liberals in this country aren't going to stop until the traditional American family is crushed and every child in this country is being raised and indoctrinated by the government. No thanks. The government can't replace a parent, but I'm sure they're going to try.

I say: keep it up. The Democrats are intent on self-destruction. Mainstream America does not share the values of California and Massachusetts, and you can't win a national election without middle America. The mainstream will eventually get tired of Dems pushing themselves into our families, and will backfire on that party. So, please, keep it up. And while you're at it, how about passing legislation that would outlaw puppies and apple pie?


Allisoni Balloni said...

First of all, I'm not sure what makes you think that the traditional family will disappear because of the allowance of nontraditional families. I'm also not sure what the link is between traditional families and spanking. Are you suggesting that spanking a child is one of the foundations of a traditional American family? There is a large amount of parents who do not agree with spanking and have never/would never spank their children. There is research that supports the negative psychological effects of spanking. For someone who is so vehemently against corrupting our children, it's somewhat surprising to me that this upsets you. While I don't really have a strong opinion at this point that is either for or against it, I don't think it can be argued that this legislation is really that radical.

John Washburn said...

"negative psychological effects of spanking"

I'm constantly amazed at how liberals think. They voice great concern about the negative psychological effects of spanking, but you don't hear them talk much about the negative psychological effects of illegitimacy, single-parent homes, no fault divorce, gangster rap, child pornography, violence on television or failure to punish child sex offenders. I guess those things aren't high on their radar of concern, but all this spanking must stop.

The truth is that liberals want the government in your life as much as possible. They don't really care about the negative psychological effects on children.

And I wasn't talking about "non-traditional" families destroying the traditional family. I was talking about the government destroying the traditional family, which is what will happen when we take away parental authority and replace it with governmental authority.

Once again, that point has been missed completely and Allison has decided to make this post a discussion about spanking. I am not here to debate the merits of spanking (80% of parents spank their kids). I personally feel the individual parent has the right to decide that for themselves. What I oppose is the government mandating that parents can't spank, and telling parents how to raise their children. Allison, you can choose not to spank. That's your right and I support it, and would oppose any government law that infringed on that right. No one can replace a parent, especially not the government.

Allisoni Balloni said...

Can the government do anything at all about illegitimacy, single-parent homes, and divorce? No. Again, I did not say that I was either for or against spanking, and I did not "voice great concern" about the effects of spanking, I simply pointed out that it's true. I don't know anyone, liberal or otherwise, who thinks that exposing children to harm is a good idea. Child pornography is not tolerated, much like sex offenders. What more can be done about these issues? Violence on television and rap music--well, exercise those parental rights of yours! Radio and television do not exist solely for the viewing pleasure of small children, it appeals to a very large audience. Some things are appropriate and some are not, if you, as a parent, feel that it is inappropriate, turn it off. Parents DO have rights, but the issue is about whether or not parents have the right to hit their children and call it spanking. While it may seem harmless in some situations, other children are in danger because of what their parents get away with. I am not trying to make this only about spanking, but you ignore the main questions I raise and attack my status as a "liberal" instead.
You failed to address whether or not you feel that spanking is an integral part of the American family, as you suggested in your post. I am simply responding to the statements that you made, not inventing issues that do not exist.

John Washburn said...

I did respond, by saying that 80% of parents spank their children. It is an accepted form of discipline and in the vast majority of cases does not constitute abuse.

Whether or not it's an integral part of the family is NOT THE ISSUE. Who cares? The issue is the gov't interfering with parental rights. The more this happens, the more the traditional family fails. Today it's spanking, or abortion right-to-know. What will it be tomorrow?

Dan Trabue said...

Where do you get your 80% figure? In my circles, that figure would be much lower than 8%.

It's not an integral part of the families around here (in good ol' conservative Kentucky). And Allisoni is correct, no one supports the list of vices that you attribute to "liberals."

For what it's worth, I don't think I'd vote for outlawing spanking. I know of (in a small percentage of my parent friends) some very good parents who may use spanking ocassionally and, while I doubt its efficacy and have concern for its harmful effects, I'm wary of having the gov't interfere in parenting issues.

I think there's a line where spanking becomes abuse and I would support the community getting involved in those circumstances. Still, I would tread lightly.

The truth is that liberals want the government in your life as much as possible.

Well, don't you reckon the truth is that both "liberals" and "conservatives" want gov't intervention at times? Don't conservatives want gov't telling folk what they can and can't smoke, who they can and can't marry? Don't "liberals" want a much smaller gov't intervening militarily around the world?

"Liberals" don't have a lock on wanting gov't intervention nor do they always want it. Just to be fair.

Dan Trabue said...

In the news:

In her statement to Galveston authorities, Trenor said the girl was beaten with leather belts, had her head held underwater in a bathtub and then was thrown across a room, her head slamming into a tile floor.

Although the affidavit said the couple abused Riley over a four- to six-hour period, Stickler said it wasn't a continuous event. Instead, Zeigler grew increasingly enraged as he spanked Riley and she kept forgetting to do things the way he wanted.

BB-Idaho said...

Dan covered both items I was pondering. A two year old taught to say 'please' and 'yes sir'..couldn't quite get it right after waterboarding and head slamming (probably edema in the forebrain) and the 'parental rights' continued until her dead body was boxed. Even a compassionate conservative could spin this in a positive light....

BB-Idaho said...

Oops, meant to say ..conservative
couldn't spin this.. Along these lines we learn that
"Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died due to child abuse or neglect.
What were the characteristics of these children?
More than 80 percent of children who were killed were younger than 4 years old; approximately 12 percent were 4-7 years old; 4 percent were 8-11 years old, and 3 percent were 12-17 years old (figure S-4).

Infant boys (younger than 1 year old) had the highest rate of fatalities, nearly 18 deaths per 100,000 boys of the same age in the national population. Infant girls had a rate of 17 deaths per 100,000 girls of the same age. The overall rate of child fatalities was 2 deaths per 100,000 children. More than one-third of child fatalities were attributed to neglect; physical abuse also was a major contributor to child fatalities (figure S-5).
Approximately 79 percent of perpetrators were parents."
RE: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/summary.htm
..if the government should't bother to care, who should?

Anonymous said...

It's a generational effect; The baby-boomers worshipped Beatles,
Stones, Janice Joplin, an' Jimmy Hendriks, and listened intently
to LSD Guru, Dr Tim Leary, had kids
and listened to Dr. Spock advise on how to raise their kids with Psycho-babble, and bought Darth Vader masks to skeer the younguns;

Now, as the kids grow up with the
hip-hop & rap-crap & cell-phones, they exhibit arrogance & libertine glossy, signifying Nothing! Did you expect something more? Like a fully indoctrinated "Peace" advocate, & UTube porn freak...

Tell ol' St Peter At The Golden Gate, that ya gotta make him wait,
Cuz ya just gotta lite another Zig-Zag Cigarette! Wheee!

What the hell are youze guys talking about, anyway? reb

John Washburn said...

"no one supports the list of vices that you attribute to "liberals."

Very well, then I would expect all of you to support a law banning single parent families, no fault divorce, and making it a crime to allow children to view violence on TV or listen to gangster rap. Would I be wrong? Or would you have a problem with infringing on parental rights?

BB, you cited some interesting statistics on child abuse, however that has nothing to do with spanking. Somehow, you seem to think the two are interchangable. You guys are all talking about abuse, which SHOULD be outlawed. But spanking and abuse are different, don't try to make them one in the same.

BB, you can let the government raise your children if you want. I choose to do it myself.

Dan Trabue said...

Do YOU support those gov't interventions (outlawing single parent families and violent tv for kids)? I'm unsure of your point, John.

Of course, I (and I suspect most people) don't want that sort of gov't intervention in parenting. You're not saying you do, are you?

I was not that different in my response than what you seem to be saying: Abuse should be outlawed. I'd be wary of outlawing spanking. But there is a continuum there and a connection, sometimes.

Still wondering, was the 80% spankers just a wild number (I do that sometimes, not meaning a literal percentage, but just what it seems like to me) or have you read that somewhere?

John Washburn said...

Dan, No I don't support measures like that. The point I was making (to others, understanding you oppose this legislation) is that if someone advocates governmental infringement upon parental rights to "protect the children" then they would be unable to argue against the measures I mentioned. If someone supports a ban on spanking because it MAY cause negative psychological effects on kids, then they'd also have to support banning those things I mentioned.

Here are some links for stats.