Early 21st century realities confront late 20th century idealism.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Opinions - 02 Dec 2005 16:49 GMT

Outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warns of severe
economic consequences if record federal budget deficits continue. He
does not mention that the Fed will stop reporting the M3 money supply
in early 2006.

Among other things, concerns over a missing M3 indicator is causing a
gold stampede not seen since the price spike that occurred on the heels
of the Reagan economic recession almost a quarter century ago. Savvy
investors smell economic relapse; some fear actual collapse of
America's fiat money system.

Meanwhile, strict constitutional law constructionist Sam Alito is
likely to be confirmed by the Senate as the designated replacement for
the more moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. Although seldom doctrinaire in
his previous written judicial opinions, Alito's legal mind is akin to
that of late 19th century Supreme Court justices who believed that
individual rights must be sacrificed for the greater good.

Alito's confirmation will tilt the high Court from moderate to
conservative. The shift will do great damage to the feminist agenda.

More former allies in the war on terrorism are bailing out of Iraq.
Still more will probable follow. Most likely American troops will be
returning from Iraq in 2006. As with those returning from the debacle
in Vietnam, many returnees will have great difficulty adjusting once
they have a chance to reflect on their experiences, the lies they were
told, and the way they were used.

*La Grand Armée* that the soldiers once knew is, according to
Congressman and former military officer John Murta, now broken and in
desperate need of repair. Then, so, too, are America's pubic schools
with their own depleted version of *shell-shocked* teachers.

Yet, despite all of the above and more, the silly no-spanks expect to
perpetuate their preposterous little no-compromise agenda. In many
ways, they are very much like George W. Bush in Iraq. No-spanks expect
a *victory* merely because they will it.

Likewise, no-spanks have no contingency plan beyond merely being
victorious. Thus, like the president, any *new plan* they have
consists of little more than a rehash of their tired old rhetoric.

The reality is that no-spank will not fly in light of 21st century
facts of life.

Reply to this Message

pohaku.kane@gmail.com - 02 Dec 2005 18:19 GMT

Obsessive reads a news article and does his best to make it fit his
biases, and apply to his prejudices, and spanking is the issue.
Spanking now is tied to a bad economy. Interesting thinking.

> Outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warns of severe
> economic consequences if record federal budget deficits continue. He
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> investors smell economic relapse; some fear actual collapse of
> America's fiat money system.

Been dar, don dat. Came back stronger than ever.

> Meanwhile, strict constitutional law constructionist Sam Alito is
> likely to be confirmed by the Senate as the designated replacement for
> the more moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

Really?

> Although seldom doctrinaire in
> his previous written judicial opinions,

Hmmm...r r r...of course not.

> Alito's legal mind is akin to
> that of late 19th century Supreme Court justices who believed that
> individual rights must be sacrificed for the greater good.

And this assessment is according to who? That would tend to put him in
the liberal camp, not the conservative where he in fact firm is. And
has been for his entire career and upper education. I have nothing on
his kindergarden politics...but I bet he was a little right of Dennis
the Menace.

> Alito's confirmation will tilt the high Court from moderate to
> conservative. The shift will do great damage to the feminist agenda.

Those who "believed that individual rights must be sacrificed for the
greater good" are not conservatives. It is liberals that hold with
socialist views such as that. But there is a chance, despite these
errors in civics knowledge, that the court could so shift.

History of supreme court appointees does not bear this up well though.
Some very conservative appointees, historically from their vitea,
turned out to have quite liberal and progessive views as time passed on
the bench.

> More former allies in the war on terrorism are bailing out of Iraq.
> Still more will probable follow. Most likely American troops will be
> returning from Iraq in 2006. As with those returning from the debacle
> in Vietnam, many returnees will have great difficulty adjusting once
> they have a chance to reflect on their experiences, the lies they were
> told, and the way they were used.

And they will have time to reflect, we assume, to find out that the
lies about WND not being found (since some of them did in fact
personally find them) that anti American propagandists have been
happily at their destructive and selfish work.

> *La Grand Armée* that the soldiers once knew is, according to
> Congressman and former military officer John Murta, now broken and in
> desperate need of repair.

"Broken?" Worn and used. But then that is what happens when you use a
tool.

> Then, so, too, are America's pubic schools
> with their own depleted version of *shell-shocked* teachers.

The cure is in one thing. Funding to the problem level and sorting out
the administrative failures and replacing the ones failing. We underpay
an already too limited pool of teachers for the number of children
served.

> Yet, despite all of the above and more, the silly no-spanks expect to
> perpetuate their preposterous little no-compromise agenda.

I was an advocate of compromise for most of my life. It's only this
year that I changed my position. Like the "go slow" blacks that wanted
a gradual change in white resistence to equal rights, I too found
myself misjudging the good offices of the opponent. Bigots and child
torturers should have tipped me off as to their willingness to continue
their sickness and resist voluntary change.

So it was natural for me to go the same way the anti slavery, and the
anti-"same old same old" folks took. Legal sanction against the morally
reprehensible and indefensible actions of others.

> In many
> ways, they are very much like George W. Bush in Iraq. No-spanks expect
> a *victory* merely because they will it.

Regardless of my own position regarding Iraq, I notice a good deal
happening that is not just there result of someone "willing" it. In
fact I understand there is gunfire, and from out side too.

Apparently there's more than "will."

And you can be sure, there is more than "will" which I tried, going on
now with those that are successfully removing spanking as an option for
educators, and soon parents.

> Likewise, no-spanks have no contingency plan beyond merely being
> victorious.

Depends on what you mean by "victorious." Given the demonstrated
treachery of spankers for millenium you don't really think we are
simply going to get a law past and then go home an nap do you?

> Thus, like the president, any *new plan* they have
> consists of little more than a rehash of their tired old rhetoric.

There is a term I agree with. It's called, "stay the course."

You are having it demonstrated to you.

All your criticism, including this one, are based on claims that
failure is anything but 100% success.

LIfe doesn't work that way. But then I don't expect brilliance from
spanked children.

> The reality is that no-spank will not fly in light of 21st century
> facts of life.

The fact is, reality demands that it does.

The pretense there is something unreal about not spanking makes clear
how important it was for me, a commuity leader in my region, to get off
the hope effort and go for the force. Force is all you understand, as
you have demonstrated. So force you shall have.

I look forward to accompanying the officer on the first arrest for
spanking in my region. I have been promised a place in that event. You
might get to see me on the 10 o'clock news.

It's going to be really big event.

I expect a lot of snarling and wailing and even a bit of sobbing from
the spectators, but I also expect what happened other countries: a
drying up very quickly, a little hanky face wiping, and a complaisant
"Oh, okay, that'll work."

And the abuse rate will go up for a time, as a few nutsos hold out.
Then, it will come down and in time the striking of child will be a
singular anomoly that deserves headline exposure, just as the murder of
a child does today.

Your efforts are laughable in their obviousness, Oblivious.

And we won't need a civil war to do it. The system is in place and the
field of action is 50 states wide and deep.

And it will change, in time, from a state by state effort to what you
and your sick kind are forcing. A federal law. It's not far away, as I
see more and more child abuse and neglect legislation and rulings on
the federal level.

Even now the feds can make the states crawl on child abuse issues, and
they do.

A no'spank law isn't going to be presented in a separate stand-alone
bill to congress. It's going to come in on the back of an amendment to
current federal child protection law.

How do I know this? Well, I know the precise one. So........

Guess.

Time'sup.

0:->

Reply to this Message

Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / December 2005

Early 21st century realities confront late 20th century idealism.