Reaching back through the weekend to today, here are some notables:
- A pastor receives criminal charges for spanking his son. Germany? Sweden? Of course not. Wisconsin. More here.
- Palin-haters won't think about a word of it for longer than a second, but Fred Barnes makes yet another series of good points in defense of Governor Palin. In an odd way, it
took my mind back to the hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, when the Democrats attempted their "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas" (to quote Justice Thomas). My life-situation was such that I was able to watch almost all the hearings. What struck me at the time: all of Anita Hill's defenders knew only her; Thomas' defenders knew both of them. Now we see an attempted national high-tech lynching of an uppity woman who (unlike Senator Obama) has shown real excellence in achievement, but challenges liberal feminist orthodoxy, and East Coast elitism. - On that subject, Gerard Baker of the London Times observed that Governor Palin "has been the victim of one of the nastiest, most sustained and comprehensive slime-jobs
ever performed by a hyper-partisan national and global media." He further notes that Palin "has achieved more of substance [in Alaska] than Barack Obama has in Washington." This is, beyond dispute, true. Yet even here and in my email inbox, folks who have no excuse for not knowing better have parroted the media's meme about Governor Palin. Sad. - To anyone still feigning blinking-eyed astonishment at our observations of leftward MSM bias, did you know that "the Obama website had intentionally disabled all the basic credit-card-processing security checks and thereby enabled multiple contributions from donors with fake names"? No? Imagine that. Of course, had it been the McCain site, it would have dominated the news all weekend. The indispensable Mark Steyn discuss it here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
- L, I B. In a similar vein, it's amazing that ABC News allowed Michael Malone to admit that he's ashamed to admit he's a journalist. Why? Because he admits the obvious, which some of our drive-bys bogglingly still try to deny: his peers are in the tank for Obama. Among his good observations and questions are these: "Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?" Why, indeed. But still, I think he's too easy on them, and his answer only goes so far. Here's one more money-quote: "If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. ...[I]t is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so. "
- Even Dan Rather admits media bias. Imagine that.
- Over at Hugh Hewitt's page, Beldar tries to appeal to the conscience of good Democrats on this issue. I (A) wish him luck, and (B) predict he'll be hearing a lot of crickets. (Actually, more mockings than crickets; check the liberal trolls in the meta, if you don't mind despairing for America.)
- As to the above, I say that anyone who is okay with Obama's pro-infanticide extremism hasn't much of a conscience to which appeal may be made.
- Steven M. Warshawsky lays out what he thinks are Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory. Hope to God he's right.
- Your tax dollars at work. PBS has had a poll up about whether Governor Palin, who is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama, is fit to be Vice President. My question: where is their Biden poll?
- On the subject of Sarah Palin, don't you hate how inaccessible she is to the media? I think it's really... oh, wait. Did I say "Sarah Palin"? I should have said "Barack Obama." Certainly not Palin. My bad.
- But truly on the subject of Palin, behold more liberal love and peacefulness:
Keep checking back for updates!UPDATES:
Posts
14 comments:
Your blog's slogan (were it to have one) for this election should be: An IV of critical thinking for the infection of MDS/PDS the MSM gave you.
High compliment, Chris. Thanks. I try.
Here in New Mexico (and perhaps anywhere where there is a significant hispanic population), there are a lot of campaign signs that read, "Obamanos!"
Those of you who understand even a little Spanish will recognize that this can be translated to "let us Obamafy ourselves," or perhaps as a plea to some third party: "Obamafy us."
My first thought when I saw these signs popping up was that it was somewhat like a supplication to a Higher Power to grant us redemption.
I shudder for the unborn -- and born -- babies if God grants us Obamafication.
A couple of weeks ago Al Mohler's radio program featured a program on spanking. Somewhere in there it mentioned a UN initiative to eradicate spanking (or "smacking" for you UK readers) in all countries by 2009.
I did a Google search, but only found vague references to it, nothing specific. And nothing on the UN site. Anyone heard something more on this?
Wow, that's a lot to cover in one post. In regards to the article about the spanking pastor - while I believe that spanking is a viable form of punishment in some cases for some children, spanking with a paddle hard enough to leave bruises is, at best, questionable behavior. I think the authorities have a decent case on that one.
I once spanked my 2 yr old for not obeying in the bathtub. It left a red mark in the shape of my hand for about an hour. I felt so terrible about it that I cried. I also had to repent because I realized after the fact that I had spanked her in anger, something every child discipline book I have read says NOT to do (not just the secular ones). I should have calmed down, taken a deep breath, prayed, then if I was still going to spank her, I should have done it out of love, not anger.
I don't know if this boy's father prayed about it prior to spanking him. I understand that if he has arthritis, he can't spank with his hands. I even understand using a paddle. But, it is possible to use a paddle without leaving bruises. Also was HE spanking in anger, or in love? How did the authorities find out about the spanking? These are questions none of us can answer, since we were not there.
Your opinions about bruises, paddles, anger, the reach of law into the home — ever run them by a Bible? If so, what happened?
Concerning honest reporting; here is another impressive article, by a democrat: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html.
I agree, Becky. It's impressive.
That's why I linked to it here.
(c:
The proverb "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is not specific about HOW we are to discipline, it only gives us freedom to use corporal punishment. Also I did not say that I agree that the government should have intervened, I only said that they might have a case. I meant legally speaking, not from a Biblical perspective. As far as bruising our children in the name of discipline, I'll ask you the same thing... where in the Bible does it say we ARE to paddle our children black and blue?
Also; "Be angry, but in your anger do not sin." Again I cannot speak for this boy's father as to whether he was acting out of anger or not. I know that when I did, it was sin and I needed to repent. I cannot judge another's heart.
Kate,
That verse may not mandate corporal punishment but how about "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child but the rod of correction will drive it far from him."
or this
Proverbs 23:13
"Do not hold back discipline from the child,Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die."
Sounds to me like the good pastor is on the right track
Refusal to read blog rules — to say nothing of anything else in the blog except "Post Comment" — doesn't actually make the rules go away.
Daryl,
I am in no way suggesting that we refrain from disciplining, and yes even spanking, our children when they need it and even though it is unpleasant for us. There are a few things we need to be careful of though. One of them is to make sure that any discipline is done in private. *Someone* notified the authorities that they thought this boy was being abused. In this society of uber-sensitive child protection, we can't even discipline with a window open, for fear that someone might hear our kid crying. After all, children don't cry unless they're being abused, right? (Please take that last sentence in the sarcastic tone in which it is meant.)
Another is, make sure the discipline is effective. Know your kids. Some kids respond well to less physical means of discipline such as time-outs, removal of privileges, etc. Others, well, they need a good swat on the behind once in a while.
The question I am asking, though, is how far is too far? Where is the line between discipline and abuse? My parents used spanking - sometimes effectively, sometimes not. My dad once beat me too harshly for no good reason, and I remember the emotional pain to this day. Not the physical, the emotional. I forgave him long ago and believe me I wish I could forget it, but it's still there. Were there times I deserved spankings? Sure. That time though, I didn't. Not only that but he went too far even if I had deserved it. He completely lost his temper and took it out on me, inappropriately. I pray that God will give me wisdom and grace not to do that to my daughter, or to any more children we may have.
Again I am not saying we shouldn't discipline our kids. Of course we should. A lot of society's problems are due to a couple of generations of parents who have indulged their kids' every desire and refused to see that they are fallen, sinful people. What I am saying is that, like all of our Christian life, we should discipline our kids prayerfully and in love.
Kate: Someone* notified the authorities that they thought this boy was being abused.
The articles that Dan links already explained how the authorities were notified. One of the child's siblings told his teacher about the spanking and the teacher reported it to social services.
Also, the proverb is not spare the rod, spoil the child (I realize that's what it sort of has become in American culture I guess). Here is the actual Proverb 13:24: Whoever spares the rod, hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline.
Also Proverbs 23: 13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you strike him with a rod he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol. Bible's words, not mine.
There is also nothing to suggest in report that the father didn't discipline his child in love. His son testified that he was warned by his father that if he continued to lie, he would be spanked. He testified that he had a chance to tell the truth but that he didn't take that chance. His son also testified that both he and his father both cried during the paddling.
I'm sorry that you spanked your daughter in anger Kate, and I'm sorry that your dad beat you for no good reason, but if you read the article thoroughly what happened with what you did with your daughter is not what this father did with his son. The doctor (again, in the story that Dan linked) already stated in his report that the doctor that looked at the child didn't think the child was abused and in his words thinks this was a "social services fiasco." The problem is you got a overreaching district attorney who believes when you paddle a child on the rear end, you shouldn't leave any bruises.
The book of Proverbs is about general principles and one of the general principle is if you spare the rod, you hate your children.
Post a Comment