Sunday March 1, 2015
Jump to content
Where? In Delaware.
Who? Sponsored by Delaware’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Patricia Blevins.
What? The new law creates three levels of child abuse.
How bad is it? Bad. The laws redefines child abuse laws to include any act that causes “pain.”
• Parents who are guilty of committing “physical injury,” or “pain,” to a child under the age of 18 are guilty of a class A misdemeanor and subjected to a year in prison as a result.
• Parents who are guilty of causing pain to a child under the age of three are guilty of a class G felony and subjected to two years imprisonment.
Weird stuff in the law? Yes. The same law also labels the “unlawful termination of a pregnancy without the consent of the pregnant female” as a “serious physical injury.”
Danger of overzealous prosecutions? You bet! Blevins says that, “Thousands of children are abused every day, many of them under the age of three. They are not even verbal. The evidence needs to be collected in other ways than in testimony." In other words, without any verbal testimony to verify abuse, we will have people prosecuted for marks on children.
Anybody taking the law to court yet? Not yet, but several agencies have commented on it:
LifeSiteNews reports, “By redefining ‘physical injury’ to include the infliction of any pain on a child, even the reasonable use of spanking has become a crime in Delaware punishable by imprisonment.”
The controversial new law has drawn criticisms from the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), in addition to the Delaware Home Education Association and the Delaware Family Policy Council. They point out that the law is “a violation of the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, including the long-recognized right to administer reasonable corporal discipline.”
Nicole Theis, president of Delaware Family Policy Council, the vague language in the law can easily be used to punish parents that spank their children. She says, “While we appreciate that it was not the intent of lawmakers to criminalize spanking, we hope that it bides us a little time to make an amendment to the law,” Theis concluded. “We definitely need some legal firepower to be able to resolve it.”
Just as an aside, Lolly and I never once spanked our two kids. Nor did my parents ever spank me, not even once. I only say that so that you'll understand I am not trying to justify the way we brought up our kids. I believe it is a parental right to choose what you do.
Spanking ok. Beating not.
I had one spanking when I was about 5. I deserved it.
I spanked all 3 of my kids. You can't reason with a 2 year old and time out is a joke with the kids. A swat on the butt gets thier attention.
I think you have it exactly right, Pat.
One thing that disturbs me lately is that quite often when I read about extremist legislation of this type it is a female legislator who is pushing it. In this case it was two of them, two state senators in Delaware. I could cite other cases, but I don't think I have to because you're all seen it yourself. Is there a reason for that? Or is it just coincidence?
(And yes, I know I am sticking my neck out by asking that kind of question, but I think you all know me well enough to know that I am not some kind of "male chauvinist pig.")
Tom, look at some of the recent proposed legislation in Arizona. I would venture that some of the crazy stuff has been put forth by men.
I do not think it is proper to suggest a connection between "extremist legislation" and women without proper documentation.
On another topic, but related, you might want to examine some of the legislation proposed by men that limit women's rights. You might also read up on "legal rape" and pregnancy as put forth by a male running for the U.S. Senate.
The legislation in Delaware needs to be corrected as suggested by Nicole Theis, a female.
It does seem to be the case that lately we are hearing about more instances of "craziness" by women. It could be the case that more women have become enpowered and are therefor able to take actions that are noticed. I will speculate that the number of slightly odd women still has to grow in order to catch up with the number of slightly odd men :-)
"Tom, look at some of the recent proposed legislation in Arizona. I would venture that some of the crazy stuff has been put forth by men."
I have no doubt about that.
"I do not think it is proper to suggest a connection between "extremist legislation" and women without proper documentation."
It's the impression I get from organizations like MADD et al.
John, It's impossible to quantify things like this, isn't it? And doing it would only lead to another battle no one needs. I like your last sentence. I was just reading about McCarthy and his almost insane red-baiting last night, and how Eisenhower chose to handle it. There's a case in point. McCarthy was an example of the worst in extreme thinking.
(Hey! Could it be he'd had a sex-change operation?)
Okay, now you can kill me. :-)
The truth is, for those of you who don't remember Joe McCarthy, it would REALLY be an insult to suggest that Joe McCarthy was a woman. He is the worst of the worst. He even shamed the Marine Corps, for crying out loud! It takes a lot to do that. Look up his record. He lied every time be opened his mouth. He was a judge when the war broke out. He wanted to have a war record to run for office. He went into the Marines with an automatic commission because of his education, but later claimed he started as a buck private. Then he lied when he ran for office, saying he was an enlisted man--a Marine tail gunner. Actually, he was an office type, an intelligence officer, and though he went on flights as an observer, if he ever actually fired a tail gun in combat I've never seen a record of it. He lied about the number of missions he flew on too (called it 32 instead of 12), and what hurts is that he did it to get a medal--the Distinguished Flying Cross. That's shameful. It cheapens the medals given to men and women who earned them--often the hard way.
And the worst part of all was his lying about being wounded and showing around a letter of commendation signed by a high ranking officer and endorsed by Admiral Nimitz, who didn't know any better. His "war wound," which he claimed he got in combat from anti-aircraft fire, actually happened during one of those crazy "crossing the equator" ceremonies that are so much fun aboard ship. It turned out that he wrote his own recommendation letter while he was an intelligence officer in a headquarters and just passed it in for signatures.
Whether he drank so much because he knew he was a phony I don't know, but he literally drank himself to death. Military people despise the man. Military people recognize what it takes to be a Marine, and it galls us to think that a man like McCarthy used the Corps for his own evil purposes.
Gee, Bernice! Why did you bring up Joe McCarthy?
My memory is bad, did I bring up Joe McCarthy?????????? But anyway, your story demonstrates that lyin' ain't confined to contemporary politicians.
Do politicians have special training in spin? Has any study been done to determine if their brains differ from the brains of ordinary folk? What about the existence or non-existence of "guilty conscience?"
No, Bernice. You didn't bring him up. I just thought it might be fun to rub you a little. :-)
"But anyway, your story demonstrates that lyin' ain't confined to contemporary politicians."
Oddly enough, I was lying in bed last night when it occurred to me that there might be a very logical reason why all that lying started when it did. One of these days I'll write a string starter and put up the idea. Might be something to it.
"Do politicians have special training in spin?"
During the Eisenhower administration, Nelson Rockefeller suggested a "political warfare school." It was never seriously considered, but it's interesting that the suggestion was made at that particular time.
"Has any study been done to determine if their brains differ from the brains of ordinary folk?"
I don't know. However, several of the people who have served in White House positions seem to be saying that in their writings.
"What about the existence or non-existence of 'guilty conscience?'"
Beats me. From what I see in people who think that winning is everything I would doubt the existence of any kind of conscience, at least in the sense we use the term.
Tom, I think you said it all when you said "people who think that winning is everything." I think there is also some "I can get away with it." And some magnificently huge egos.
What do we have to do to get some people to run for office who really want to do the best for most of the people? What can we do to get them honest?
"What do we have to do to get some people to run for office who really want to do the best for most of the people? What can we do to get them honest?"
Good question. And I have a partial answer.
One big problem we have is the fact that anything someone says is immediately "used against him" in the electronic media, which thrives on controversy. It wasn't always that way. I can remember when the news--on radio then--was sometimes rather flat. But that isn't allowed to happen these days. If it isn't controversial, it isn't news. Contrast that with what you see in the newspapers.
I'll give you a specific example of what I mean.
In March of 1988, the 16 NATO heads of state met in Brussels. Colin Powell, one of the most honest men this nation has ever seen, attended as an adviser to Ronald Reagan. As he was coming out of the building much later, Powell was stopped by Chris Wallace of NBC News and asked to talk off the record for a while. He agreed. All in all they spoke for an hour. At one time, for 12 minutes, Wallace had the cameras turned on as he asked Powell how such meetings usually run. In the context of what they had talked about, Powell said the talks were going fine, although some disagreement was inevitable when so many leaders met.
Later that day Powell's phone rang and he was asked if he realized what he had done. Confused, he found that Wallace's camera crew had earlier caught Ronald Reason coming out of the meeting, where Wallace had asked him, on camera, if there was any disagreement with the members on one specific point--the continuing Soviet threat.
Reagan had replied honestly that he had never seen such harmony, and was asked a follow up question. Had they disagreed about anything? His answer was an forthright, "No."
As the tape ran on NBC Nightly News showing what Reagan was saying, the camera cut away to Wallace, who said, "But even some of his advisors disagreed about that." And there was Powell, on camera, saying, "Where you have sixteen nations, each sovereign, certainly there will be differences and there will be heated debate and discussion from time to time." That was just 7 seconds out of an hour's talk, words very cleverly elicited by setting Powell up. And notice that the question did not specifically ask if there had been disagreement that day.
It was an obvious setup, a way of getting Powell to say something that contradicted what the President had already said on tape, a way of creating news.
When Powell caught up with Wallace and asked about the cheap shot, the answer from the totally unfazed Wallace was, "I needed an angle. And if that's the worst that ever happens to you, you're lucky."
The place to start getting people to be honest? It might not hurt if the electronic media quit trying to generate controversy where none exists.
If NBC News called and asked how the weather was in Pine, I'd answer, "My mother was a wonderful woman, I love apple pie, and my Chevy is running fine."
By the way, Bernice, I forgot to say that you were right when you said, "there is also some "I can get away with it." And some magnificently huge egos.
Posting comments requires a free account