Tuesday, January 23, 2007

No More Spanking - Unless It's Your Dominatrix


The above link takes you to an article on the law that a California legislature wants to pass to make it against the law to spank your child if they are 3 years or younger.

This is making the nanny state truly our care giver. I mean now we will have to define what is spanking. Is one swat to the butt spanking, it grabbing little Johnny’s arm too hard spanking. Then if you are found guilty you could spend a year in jail while the state raises your child. That’s because group homes have worked out so well.

The legislature wants to protect the children from beating; well the laws are already on the books. We don’t need more laws to say the same thing and we don’t need the state more in our lives then they are already.

When will people wake up and start realizing laws do not solve all the problems and more and more laws just give the state more and more powers.

Our founding fathers would say to toss out all the laws and start anew. When you get pulled over by a police officer on the highway it used to be for speeding or maybe you ran a red light. You would get a ticket and either pay it or go to court. Now you get pulled over and it could be speeding, reckless driving, aggressive driving, driving without a seat belt, being on a cell phone and maybe an open container of alcohol was in your car. The fines are in excess of $1,000 and if guilty you will lose your license. So you hire an attorney and that cost you $1,500 and they throw out the seat belt & cell phone and aggressive driving violations, reduce the speeding and reckless driving to 2 points and a $350 fine plus court cost and you sign up for an AA program and 40 hours of community service due to the open beer bottle. It's the same way in criminal cases the person is charged with 10 or more offenses and they throw out the minor ones and plead out a sentence on the other charges.

Common sense has lost the battle and we are a nation that has lost our common sense and now allows a government that we do not trust in polls to handle and solve all of our problems.

Sure let’s stop spanking and yelling at your child is also too aggressive so let’s stop that behavior too. Next we need more people in child services to handle all the cases coming in and these will be people who have a degree in what is right for children, because highly educated means you must be right. Of course we will need more group homes for these poor abused children to be housed in and we know only caring and wonderful families are ever licensed to run a group home.

We really have become weak and a group of sheeple who will allow our government to abuse us in almost anyway because it is all for the children and/or our safety.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. "a government that we do not trust in poles" I still love your typos. Is the government in Poland or has it somehow encased itself in a pole? :)

    On the topic at hand, however, you appear to be advocating no government at all when you say we should toss it all out and start over. Why is a ticket for speeding ok but not for DUI, talking on a cell phone, etc. They can be equally hazardous on the roads. Do you want to go back to the laws at the time of the founding of the US? Presumably you'd make an exception for slavery. How about letting women vote? Hell, getting out of the constitutional realm, shall we go back to the days when there was no such thing as statutory rape?

    Don't get me wrong. I think the CA legislator is an idiot. She's not alone, either. There are a lot of anti-spanking, anti-yelling advocates out there. Just check out Nanny 911 or one of those shows on the tube. They're very anti-discipline of that sort. I am not. Just ask my kids. Be that as it may, this legislation has not even been written up as a proposal as yet, last I heard. It's got a lot of opposition in CA, so it's not terribly likely to be a law. So, the diatribe seems both contrived and unnecessarily broad, meandering into other topics of the so called "nanny state".

    And that's my two cents.

  3. Thomm - Amazing how you focus on minor points and refuse to consider the possibilities that perhaps the state has too much power. But if you want to allow the government to run your life that's your choice, mine is to fight against. So in kind your remark is equally contrived and obtuse.

    If we don't raise our voice when these things are raised then they are pushed and pushed and eventually become law. Helmets in cars would save lives, so why do we not have to wear helmets in cars, but on motorcycles.

    I'm advocating less government. Chaos does have a certain appeal, but Iraq shows the reality of chaos. So less government and less then what we have now.

  4. I understand where you're coming from, and I sympathize.