tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374918652024-03-07T13:11:06.223-05:00Thou and Thou OnlyRiches we heed not, nor man's empty praise.<br><br>
This blog belongs to the family of JunkMale, a Christian and Georgia Tech alumnus. Target demographics might include conservative Christian, healthy-eating, homeschooling, interracial families, and others who do not call this world "home." Where homemade is usually better than store-bought. For more info, click the "About" link below.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-14492238246973788822010-09-23T08:24:00.000-04:002010-09-23T08:24:00.996-04:00An Analysis of the Research on Spanking Part 4<span style="font-weight: bold;">Putting it All Together</span><br /><br />After reading the last two posts, you might wonder if the pro-spanking and anti-spanking researchers are on different planets, because their research is so starkly different. There are studies saying spanking is the most effective way of reducing antisocial behavior, and studies saying that spanking <span style="font-style: italic;">causes</span> antisocial behavior. There are studies saying that spanking two times a month is frequent, and studies saying that five times a day is moderate. There were studies saying that spanking was related to lower drug use, and studies saying that it caused rebellion, depression, and drug use. The research was split very nearly 50/50.<br /><br />Who <span style="font-style: italic;">wouldn't</span> be confused?<br /><br />But I do think there are some trends that we can recognize. First, nearly all of the studies that accounted for spanking frequency showed that too much spanking can be bad. In other words, quality is much better than quantity. Second, the state of mind of the parent is also important. Don't spank in anger. Don't spank impulsively. Don't spank if you don't believe in it as part of your family's disciplinary strategy. And certainly don't spank if you have a history of abuse or other psychological issues. The studies that accounted for these behaviors nearly all showed that a parent who is in control of themselves and spanks purposefully gets better results than a parent who is apt to lose control.<br /><br />And, apparently, white parents need to be more careful about this than black parents. Don't ask me why, but at least <span style="font-style: italic;">three</span> studies showed that spanking was beneficial for black children but not as effective for white children. None of the research looked at Asian children. <span style="font-style: italic;">Naturally</span>. ;-)<br /><br />Also, much of the pro-spanking research indicates that the "sweet spot" for spanking is between 2 and 6 years old. In both younger and older children, you start to see negative effects. There were studies in the anti-spanking research that showed negative outcomes for the 2-6 age range. However, there were only three studies that exclusively looked within that age range, and they were all published this year. Most of the other studies looked at children under two or at elementary school children.<br /><br />In fact, nearly all the research on elementary or older children showed some negative results, and nearly all the research on infants showed negative results. So if it were me, I would suggest not spanking a child younger than 1 or older than about 8. For young toddlers and for older elementary school students, use caution. Certainly don't do it frequently, and even then it should be a mild version of a spanking.<br /><br />So, confession time - what do we do in our house? We really only "spank" for one offense right now, and that is touching the computers. She has already destroyed one laptop by kicking it in a fit of anger, and she has also poured water on a running computer which was very lucky to only lose a video card. But the end result is that she has lost computer privileges. She can look, but she can't touch. Here is what we do if she disobeys:<br /><br />The first time she touches my keyboard I remove her hand and say firmly, "Do not touch Mama's computer. Do you understand?"<br /><br />The second time she touches my keyboard within the same 10 or 15 minutes, I again remove her hand and say firmly, "Do not touch Mama's computer. If you touch it again I will give you a spanking. Do you understand?"<br /><br />The third time she touches the keyboard (again, in a reasonable time frame so that she should remember what I said), she gets a mild slap on the wrists and a repeat of the previous warning: "Don't touch. If you do this again, you get another spanking. Do you understand?"<br /><br />Etc. About once every other day or so I will "practice" on myself just to make sure I'm not hitting too hard.<br /><br />Pearl is only 15 months old. I don't anticipate seriously expanding our "spankable offenses" until she is much older. I also plan to give her fewer warnings once she is old enough that I know she understands the house rules. At this age I think it is only fair for me to give her ample warning and attempt to solve the problem without spanking whenever possible.<br /><br />What conclusions have you drawn from the research? How did or do you handle spanking in your house?Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-73826574974815954072010-09-22T07:04:00.002-04:002010-09-22T07:04:00.159-04:00An Analysis of the Research on Spanking Part 3The Case Against Spanking<br /><br />Yesterday I shared with you 14 studies that made the case for spanking. Today I will discuss the 15 studies that make a case against spanking. Here, in brief, is what they said:<br /><br />When parents spank their children, there is a higher rate of psychological reactance (that is, rebellion), more aggression, a greater tendency to solve problems with violence, and to engage in antisocial behaviors. There is a greater incidence in adulthood of anxiety and depression. There was a correlation between abuse and spanking (abusive parents were more likely to spank, not that spanking parents were more likely to be abusive). Infants who are spanked are more likely to be injured. The effect is greatest when the parent spanks impulsively and when they use an object, though negative outcomes were observed even when controlling for that.<br /><br />Again, for those of you who are crazy like me, I have included summaries of each of the studies below. The number in parentheses is the link number at pubmed. Search for "spanking". Tomorrow we will put all the research together and attempt to come up with consensus.<br /><br />1992 (102) - 169 adults were given a Narcissism test and a psychological reactance test. "Persons who were more narcissistic tended to score higher in reactance and had fathers who used monetary rewards more and encouraged independence to a greater extent. These results are contrary to those expected from Kernberg's and Kohut's views linking narcissism to less nurturance by parents. Higher psychological reactance scores correlated with less praise, more scolding, and more verbal abuse from both parents. Psychological reactance scores also correlated with more spanking by fathers and with their being described as being less fair. These results suggest that punitive disciplinary styles are not related to narcissism but are to psychological reactance."<br /><br />1994 (99) - "Seventeen Hispanic elementary schoolboys with violent behavior problems were compared with 27 matched control students who were not overtly violent at school. Violent boys were significantly more likely to not live with their fathers, to have unmarried parents, to have more siblings, and to have fathers who never show them affection. Parents of violent boys were more likely than those of matched control students to use spanking for discipline and to admit that they rarely express affection for their sons."<br /><br />1995 (95) - "Fifty-two Hispanic mothers attending an urban hospital clinic were given a questionnaire. Behavior problem scores were significantly related to the use of yelling and hitting/spanking as methods of discipline. Precarious health status and low enrollment in preschool programs also were reported."<br /><br />1997 (84) - A longitudinal study of 807 6-9 year olds showed that, "<span>Forty-four percent of the mothers reported spanking their children during the week prior to the study and they spanked them an average of 2.1 times that week. The more spanking at the start of the period, the higher the level of ASB 2 years later.</span><span> The change is unlikely to be owing to the child's tendency toward ASB or to confounding with demographic characteristics or with parental deficiency in other key aspects of socialization because those variables were statistically controlled.</span><span>"<br /><br />1998 (79) - The study followed 993 mothers of children aged 2-14. The study showed that, "</span>the more CP experienced by the child, the greater the tendency for the child to engage in ASB and to act impulsively. These relationships hold even after controlling for family socioeconomic status, the age and sex of the child, nurturance by the mother, and the level of noncorporal interventions by the mother. There were also significant interaction effects of CP with impulsiveness by the mother. When CP was carried out impulsively, it was most strongly related to child impulsiveness and ASB; when CP was done when the mother was under control, the relationship to child behavior problems was reduced but still present."<br /><br />1999 (75) - A survey of 9953 residents of Ontario 15 years or older found that, "<span>[a]mong the respondents without a history of physical or sexual abuse during childhood, those who reported being slapped or spanked "often" or "sometimes" had significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders [...], alcohol abuse or dependence [...] and one or more externalizing problems[...], compared with those who reported "never" being slapped or spanked. There was also an association between a history of slapping or spanking and major depression, but it was not statistically significant[...]."<br /><br />2000 (73) - "</span>Parents of 631 behaviorally disruptive children described the extent to which they experienced warm and involved interactions with their children and the extent to which their discipline strategies were inconsistent and punitive and involved spanking and physical aggression. As expected from a developmental perspective, parenting practices that included punitive interactions were associated with elevated rates of all child disruptive behavior problems. Low levels of warm involvement were particularly characteristic of parents of children who showed elevated levels of oppositional behaviors. Physically aggressive parenting was linked more specifically with child aggression. In general, parenting practices contributed more to the prediction of oppositional and aggressive behavior problems than to hyperactive behavior problems, and parenting influences were fairly consistent across ethnic groups and sex."<br /><br />2003 (45) - "We show here that subtle forms of maltreatment during infancy (below 1 year of age) have potential consequences for the functioning of the child's adrenocortical response system. Infants who received frequent corporal punishment (e.g., spanking) showed high hormonal reactivity to stress (a repeated separation from mother, combined with the presence of a stranger). In addition, infants who experienced frequent emotional withdrawal by their mothers (either as a result of maternal depression, or mother's strategic use of withdrawal as a control tactic) showed elevated baseline levels of cortisol. It was suggested that there are hormonal "costs" when mothers show response patterns (intentionally or unintentionally) that limit their utility as a means of buffering the child against stress. The hormonal responses shown by infants may alter the functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in ways that, if continued, may foster risk for immune disorders, sensitization to later stress, cognitive deficits, and social-emotional problems."<br /><br />2004 (39) - The study followed 1966 babies from 0 to 24 months for 4 years. This is another study that found a difference between blacks and whites: "<span>White non-Hispanic children who were spanked more frequently before age 2 were substantially more likely to have behavior problems after entry into school, controlling for other factors. For Hispanic and black children, associations between spanking frequency and behavior problems were not statistically significant and were not consistent across outcome measures."<br /><br />2006 (34) - This was a longitudinal study of about 5000 infants (0 - 12 months) from mostly single parent homes. The study found that "</span><span>Multivariate regression analyses revealed two significant independent risk factors [for infant injury in the first year of life], maternal alcohol use [...] and mother spanking child in the previous month."<br /><br />2008 (19) - A telephone survey of women with children under 18 years old revealed that, "</span><span>Mothers who report that the child was spanked are 2.7 [...] times more likely to report abuse. Increases in the frequency of reported spanking in the last year are also associated with increased odds of abuse [...]. Mothers reporting spanking with an object are at markedly increased odds of reporting abuse [...]."<br /><br />2009 (14) - The study followed 2573 toddlers aged 1-3. "</span>Both spanking and verbal punishment varied by maternal race/ethnicity. Child fussiness at age 1 predicted spanking and verbal punishment at all 3 ages. Cross-lagged path analyses indicated that spanking (but not verbal punishment) at age 1 predicted child aggressive behavior problems at age 2 and lower Bayley mental development scores at age 3. Neither child aggressive behavior problems nor Bayley scores predicted later spanking or verbal punishment. In some instances, maternal race/ethnicity and/or emotional responsiveness moderated the effects of spanking and verbal punishment on child outcomes."<br /><br />2010 (9) - The study followed 2461 3-year-olds until they were 5 years old. The study found that "<span class="sub_abstract_label"> </span><span>Frequent use of CP (ie, mother's use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age [...], even with controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3 and the aforementioned potential confounding factors and key demographic features [</span><span> including maternal child physical maltreatment, psychological maltreatment, and neglect, intimate partner aggression victimization, stress, depression, substance use, and consideration of abortion]</span><span>." (Remember the pro-spanking study from yesterday that showed that moderate spanking was up to 5 times a day? It's all in how you run the numbers....)<br /><br />2010 (4) - In 102 families with children aged 3-7, "</span><span>[c]hildren whose parents approved of and used CP were more likely to endorse hitting as a strategy for resolving interpersonal conflicts with peers and siblings. Frequent spanking was the strongest predictor of children's acceptance of aggressive problem solving, above and beyond parental acceptance, parental experience of CP, and familial demographics."<br /><br />2010 (2) - The study found that in a sample of 1997 3-year-olds, "</span><span>[O]f couples who reported any family aggression (87%), 54% reported that both CP and IPAV occurred. The most prevalent patterns of co-occurrence involved both parents as aggressors either toward each other (ie, bilateral IPAV) or toward the child. The presence of bilateral IPAV essentially doubled the odds that 1 or both parents would use CP, even after controlling for potential confounders such as parenting stress, depression, and alcohol or other drug use. Of the 5 patterns of co-occurring family aggression assessed, the "single aggressor" model, in which only 1 parent aggressed in the family, received the least amount of empirical support."<br /></span>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-2500472452985648212010-09-21T08:11:00.003-04:002010-09-21T08:11:00.568-04:00An Analysis of the Reasearch on Spanking Part 2<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Evidence For and Against</span><br /><br /><br />The Evidence For Spanking:<br /><br />There were fourteen studies that showed either a neutral or a net positive effect of spanking on children. The quotes below from the studies are tedious, so I will sum up here. Spanking is effective at reducing antisocial behavior. It is more effective in black families than white families, and more effective for younger children (about ages 2-6) than older children and infants. Spanking has no effect on self-esteem, reduces the likelihood that the child will do drugs, and rated similarly with other methods of discipline. Above-average use of spanking produces adverse effects, but moderate use is associated with greater nurturing on the part of the parent than below-average use of spanking.<br /><br />So as you can see, there is significant research spanning 4 decades that suggests that not only is spanking not harmful to children, but that it can actually be beneficial. Anyone who suggests otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about or has an agenda.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean that there are no ill effects from spanking. The research behind childhood aggression and spanking is well-documented, as we will see tomorrow with the case against spanking.<br /><br />Until then, here are the studies in greater detail for those of you like me who are crazy enough to want to read about them (the number in parenthesis refers to the number of the study on pubmed after searching for "spanking"):<br /><br />1975 (115) - A study of 5,044 US Army soldiers showed that, "Childhood antecedents [...] associated with non-use of illegal drugs and which showed as much as a 20% difference in reported occurrence between abusers and non-users of illegal drugs were: spanking, church attendance, first alcoholic drink after 15 years, and perceived "happy" parental marriage." No such relationship (positive or negative) was seen for alcohol abuse.<br /><br />1989 (106) - The abstract, in full (emphasis added), reads: "Punishment has long been a controversial topic in psychology, perhaps partly because its effects are different under different circumstances. This study used retrospective reports from college students to examine the effects of spanking, a common aversive punishment, on self-esteem and perceived fairness of parental discipline, while taking the effects of other parental characteristics into account. No parental characteristic interacted with the slightly negative effect of spanking on self-esteem and fairness. <span style="font-style: italic;">However, controlling for positive communication or for a parent-oriented motivation for spanking eliminated the negative effects of spanking, suggesting that the negative effects reflected use of spanking as a replacement for positive communication with the child.</span>"<br /><br />1991 (103) - The study measured the self-esteem scores of 134 college students, and also rated the students' perceived fairness of their parents. Children perceived parents who "used spanking, grounding, or scolding more, and had been over-all stricter" as being more unfair. However, "[t]here was no evidence that spanking, grounding, scolding, or monetary rewards had any effect on children's self-esteem scores, whether these methods were used by mothers or by fathers."<br /><br />1997 (86) - "<span class="sub_abstract_label"> </span><span>Five articles that met selection criteria revealed that abusive parents spanked their children more often than did nonabusive parents. Aggregated data from nonabusive parents were used to compute a continuum or "normal range" of daily spanking frequencies from 0 to 5.73 (M = 2.5) times in 24 hours." This is interesting to me, since one of the anti-spanking studies I'll show tomorrow defined "frequent" spanking as twice in a month. Definitions, definitions....</span><br /><br />1997 (83) - This is an especially interesting study of 1,112 4- to 11-year olds. It is the earliest study I've seen that looks at spanking and race (and it's not the last study we'll see that addresses this). Very, very intriguing: "<span><span style="font-weight: bold;">[S]panking predicted fewer fights for children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more fights for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white.</span> Regression analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking fostered aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims of increased aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in single-mother families." Incidentally, this was also the only study I found where spanking was not largely linked to aggression.<br /></span><br />1999 (74) - An analysis of the data 20 years after Sweden enacted a spanking ban showed that, "the spanking ban has made little change in problematic forms of physical punishment. The conclusion calls for more timely and rigorous evaluations of similar social experiments in the future."<br /><br />2000 (59) - Another study shows a difference between spanking in black families and white families: "Although a positive correlation between the use of physical discipline (i.e., spanking) and disruptive disorders in children is found in studies of European American families, research on African American families has found a negative association or none at all. Moreover, a review of the literature indicates that the positive association between spanking and child behavior problems is bidirectional for White families, whereas it is the product of reverse causation (i.e., negative child behaviors result in spanking) in Black families."<br /><br />2000 (57) - A review of the published literature on spanking: "All six studies that used clinical samples (including four randomized clinical studies) and all three sequential-analysis studies found beneficial outcomes, such as reduced noncompliance and fighting, primarily when nonabusive spanking was used to back up milder disciplinary tactics in 2- to 6-year olds. Five of eight longitudinal studies that controlled for initial child misbehavior found predominantly detrimental outcomes of spanking. However, those detrimental outcomes were primarily due to overly frequent use of physical punishment. Furthermore, apparently detrimental outcomes have been found for every alternative disciplinary tactic when investigated with similar analyses. Such detrimental associations of frequent use of any disciplinary tactic may be due to residual confounding from initial child misbehavior. Specific findings suggest discriminations between effective and counterproductive physical punishment with young children."<br /><br />2001 (32) - A study of 2017 parents of children under 3. Parents with "above-average use of spanking shared a high prevalence of parent depressive symptoms and a low level of nurturing [...] Parents who used average levels of spanking made frequent use of nonphysical disciplinary strategies and had high levels of nurturing interactions. Parents who reported below-average spanking had relatively low levels of both disciplinary and nurturing interactions."<br /><br />2005 (35) - A meta-analysis of 26 studies showed that, "effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics.</span>"<br /><br />2007 (25) - I won't quote from this one, because the language is a bit frustrating, but the gist is that when the mother endorses the use of spanking, both she and the children suffer from fewer depressive symptoms. For mothers who did not endorse the use of spanking and yet still spanked, there was a link between depression on the part of the mother and the child.<br /><br />2008 (22) - A longitudenal study of 1,863 infants showed that, "Spanking during infancy predicted slightly more severe conduct problems, but the prediction was moderated by infant fussiness and positive affect. Thus, individual differences in risk for mother-rated conduct problems across childhood are already partly evident in maternal ratings of temperament during the first year of life and are predicted by early parenting and parenting-by-temperament interactions."<br /><br />2010 (11) - This study re-analyzed a 1988 study of 785 children born between 1979 and 1982. The original study only analyzed the effect of spanking on antisocial behavior. This study looked at the effects of <span>grounding, privilege removal, sending children to their room, and psychotherapy.</span> The study found that, "<span class="sub_abstract_label"></span><span>[a] similar pattern of adverse effects was shown for grounding and psychotherapy and partially for the other two disciplinary tactics. All of these effects [including spanking] became non-significant after controlling for latent comprehensive measures of externalizing behavior problems."</span>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-53980322705523588162010-09-20T09:34:00.001-04:002010-09-20T09:34:00.273-04:00An Analysis of the Research on Spanking Part 1As a mom, I am so sick of all the debates in the so-called Mommy Wars. One side vaccinates, the other doesn't. One side spanks, the other considers it child abuse. One side says let the baby cry it out so they can learn to self-soothe, the other side says never leave a crying baby. On and on and on it goes, and the truth is that it is hard for the average mom to determine what is right.<br /><br />So it is with the spanking debate. And I, as a scientifically-minded mom, wanted to know what the research actually said. So I went to pubmed and searched for spanking. There were 151 studies that showed up, although only 33 of them included viewable abstracts that were relevant to the spanking debate. I read through each of those abstracts and made notes of what the researchers had discovered. And now I will present it to you.<br /><br />But first I want to remind everyone that all research has a bias, and that it is incredibly easy to manipulate the data to get a desired result. My engineering professors demonstrated this to our class several times, and I myself witnessed it in the lab. This does not mean that the research is useless, per se - published research is often the best tool we have to help us make informed decisions - but it is a wise observer who recognizes that the bias <span style="font-style: italic;">does </span>exist. When reviewing the literature on spanking, I saw bias on both sides of the debate, though honestly most of the bias I saw was on the anti-spanking side (though perhaps that was only because there were more anti-spanking studies than pro-spanking studies).<br /><br />The biggest oversight I saw from the anti-spanking crowd was completely dismissing degrees of spanking. That is to say, they did not seem to differentiate from infrequent spankings given when the parent wasn't angry and frequent spankings given during a fit of rage. Is there a difference between the two? Maybe, maybe not, but if I'm going to take an anti-spanking study seriously they'd better account for it. Some of the anti-spanking studies accounted for this, but not the majority. On the other hand, the vast majority of the pro-spanking studies accounted for this difference, and all of them found a difference in the two approaches.<br /><br />It also bugged me that the anti-spanking studies would frequently phrase their findings in what I think is a backwards fashion. Like saying "A square is a rectangle. Squares are bad, therefore rectangles are bad." I'll give two examples from my reading.<br /><br />The first study I read said that in homes with domestic violence, parents were two times more likely to use corporal punishment. OK, got it. And how about the reverse? Are homes that use corporal punishment more likely to have domestic violence? The rate of corporal punishment in the US is significantly higher than the rate of domestic violence, so to me it seemed logical to at least show the reverse statistic as well.<br /><br />Another study said that mothers who used psychological aggression were more likely to use corporal punishment on their children. So what can we take away from that study? That corporal punishment is equivalent to psychological aggression? Certainly not. That the use of corporal punishment leads women to psychological aggression? Of course not, that's not what that data showed. Unless you demonstrate which is the cause and which is the effect (if there even is a causal relationship between them), any conclusions you draw from a study like that are merely thought pieces. They shouldn't be used to drive the way families operate, and they certainly shouldn't be used to drive public policy.<br /><br />Again, this type of backwards logic popped up over and over again in the anti-spanking studies. They made spanking out to be the cause - which it might be, I'm not taking sides here - but their research doesn't support that claim at all. Rather, it showed it to be the result of something else in some cases.<br /><br />And the final thing about the anti-spanking studies that really bugged me is that over and over again, they would research something completely unrelated to how spanking affects children (the rate of corporal punishment in the US, or the predictors for who will spank their children - overwhelmingly those who were spanked as children, by the way), and then the conclusion to the study would be that since spanking is bad for children, this is a disturbing trend that needs to be addressed by public policy. First of all, your research didn't even <span style="font-style: italic;">touch </span>that subject. Second, based on my research, there is no consensus in the literature about this.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span> The closest to a consensus I could determine was that some forms of spanking cause aggression in certain segments of the population (more on that below), and that is hardly cause for a change in public policy. So please, stick to your <span style="font-style: italic;">actual body of research</span> in your conclusions.<br /><br />My main objection to the pro-spanking studies is that they largely ignored the spanking-aggression link that most of the anti-spanking studies addressed. Instead they focused on how spanking reduces antisocial behavior in children and the psychological effect of spanking on children. They were also a few statements that bothered me, such as how the anti-spanking studies would show "the same results for other methods of punishment if the same methods were used." OK... did you actually do studies on time-outs, loss of privileges, etc, and run the numbers? Or is that just supposition?<br /><br />The point is that both sides have a tendency to present the data in a way that favors their side. This doesn't make the researchers evil - <span style="font-style: italic;">every</span> researcher does this to a certain extent. But as we go forward in this series of posts, I want you to keep this in the front of your mind. It is healthy to read research with a good amount of skepticism.<br /><br />To be continued in Part 2 - The Evidence For SpankingHarmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-35949348652245936902010-08-10T08:59:00.000-04:002010-08-10T08:59:44.192-04:00If It Weren't Illegal, Would It Still Be Wrong?On the way to work a couple of weeks ago, I heard some mentions on the radio about the Arizona immigration law controversy. Somehow my brain then formulated the question posed in the title. I suppose my brain also accessed the memory of listening to some Mexican lawyer-type person on NPR talking about how corrupt Mexican law enforcement is.<br /><br />One of the purported purposes of this blog is to look at every day life as a stranger to this world, as someone just passing through. As someone alien to the customs that everyone else observes. So let's now look at the immigration debate from that perspective. <br /><br />Currently, it is illegal to cross the border without proper authorization, and as such, theoretically one will be deported if he is found to have done this. Now let's take the illegal part out and re-examine. Say there was no US law against entering the country without permission. Is the act of entering a sovereign country with (presumably) no harmful intentions wrong in God's eyes? I would think not. I admit to having no facts on this statement, but perhaps many of the illegal immigrants are trying to provide a nice life for their families? I feel sympathy for people who live in a country where corruption, extortion, and kidnappings are fairly common. I rather like that Harmony can take Pearl to the park during the day and not have a significant probability of being abducted.<br /><br />Obviously the government cannot just open the borders wide and not expect craziness to ensue; there'd have to be some other measures in place to document who's in the country. And we should not just let any old Juan into the country, especially if he has proven himself to be a rather unsavory character in the past.<br /><br />I wonder how enforce-the-border people would react if the government passed a sensible immigration reform law that made it much easier to enter this country? Would many of them be exposed as xenophobes? Or would it actually be true that they just wanted the law to be enforced for their safety? I would hope it would be the latter.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-26294104092954318802010-04-15T10:43:00.000-04:002010-04-15T10:44:03.531-04:00I'd Rather Return Him and Exchange for HilaryHarmony and I had a discussion last week that if we, knowing what we know now, could go back and choose between the two Democrats who had run for president, we would both overwhelmingly choose Hillary. That's a pretty bold statement for this blog, considering that back in the day, the blog header used to say something about running for the hills if Hillary were ever elected president.<br /><br />According to the LA Times, <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-sarah-palin.html">a good number of Americans agree with our sentiment</a>.<br /><br />I'm sure much of this is a grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side effect. And I would most probably disagree with a lot of Hillary's policies. But Harmony and I both assessed that she would probably be much tougher on foreign policy than Our-Great-Leader-Comrade-Barack-Hussein-Obama-Hope-Be-Upon-Him. Perhaps this would be because she might have some sort of chip on her shoulder which makes her think "I'm a woman, I have to prove that I am tough too." I have nothing to back up that statement, it's just my opinion. From what I read, Bill Clinton was a very poll-driven president and did what he needed to do in order to make the majority of the voter population happy. What's to say that Hillary wouldn't be a pragmatic liberal president like Bill? (as opposed to an <a href="http://thou-and-thou-only.blogspot.com/2010/03/ideologues-pragmatists-etc.html">ideologue liberal</a> like Our-Great-Leader-Comrade-Barack-Hussein-Obama-Hope-Be-Upon-Him)<br /><br />But instead we have Our-Great-Leader-Comrade-Barack-Hussein-Obama-Hope-Be-Upon-Him who conducts foreign policy like we live in a Care Bear Kingdom of Caring. Wait, that's not entirely accurate. At least Care Bears had directed energy weapons embedded in their soft tummies and could blast their enemies with a gigantic laser blast, albeit one that is a "ray of love and good cheer which could bring care and joy into the target's heart." (according to Wikipedia)JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-37403614046361878302010-03-08T08:58:00.003-05:002010-03-08T09:17:36.548-05:00Ideologues, Pragmatists, etc.While driving home, I usually have Sean Hannity on the radio. Not necessarily because I want to hear what he has to say (if you've heard him once or read any conservative blogs during the day, you don't really need to listen again because he doesn't have anything new to offer, IMO) but because that particular radio station has the best traffic updates.<br /><br />I often hear him sneer about how Our Great Leader Comrade Barack Hussein Obama (Hope Be Upon Him) is a radical leftist ideologue. One day I had the thought: What if a staunch conservative had been elected, whose conservative reforms were meeting opposition in the legislative process? Then, Hannity would not say "ideologue" in a sneering tone, but in a loving carressing sort of tone (if you've ever heard him mention Reagan, it's that tone). Or he'd call him a man of principle.<br /><br />When a conservative cooperates with a liberal, conservatives call him a sell-out. Liberals call him a pragmatist or a moderate. The same applies when liberals cooperate with conservatives, I imagine. I have heard Bill Clinton called a pragmatist before. I remember conservatives being up-in-arms about bailouts that happened during George W.'s terms, and I believe the general tone was that he was a sell-out or closet socialist. <br /><br />So I ask any leftist readers - do you admire Our Great Leader Comrade Barack Hussein Obama (Hope Be Upon Him) for "taking a stand on principle"? Would you be disappointed if he "sold out" and supported a change in legislation in order to get something passed? <br /><br />(I do not need or want to hear opinions on why the current healthcare/jobs bill need to pass in their current forms. I just want to hear opinions on the questions I just posed. I am not trying to trap anyone into saying this or that; you are free to respond or not respond)JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-78283327299798160002010-02-05T14:17:00.005-05:002010-02-05T14:40:42.734-05:00There is Nothing New Under the SunI think history is fascinating, especially since everywhere you look there are parallels to events going on today. I'm currently watching lectures online from a Yale course taught in spring 2008 on the Civil War*. You can read the transcript of one of the lectures <a href="http://oyc.yale.edu/history/civil-war-and-reconstruction/content/transcripts/transcript-8-dred-scott-bleeding-kansas-and-the">here</a>, about the Kansas-Nebraska act and the birth of the Republican Party. I don't think for a second we're heading for a Civil war, but there certainly are a lot of parallels between the 1850s and the past few years. Here are a few excerpts from Professor Blight's lecture:<br /><blockquote>But the Republican Party was really born amidst hundreds of meetings across the North, to discuss the Kansas-Nebraska Act, to react to it, to figure out some way to politically resist it.<br />....<br />This is a poster, one of hundreds, thousands of posters from 1854 calling for a meeting. It doesn't even use the term Republican Party anywhere, just calling people together--it's in Chester, Pennsylvania I think--just calling people together to discuss the Kansas-Nebraska Act, to discuss what's really happened here, and to discuss the slave power.<br />....<br />What was born in that summer, and especially that fall, was the most rapid third-party political coalition movement in all of American history; and if you want a prototype for any possibility of that kind, any other time in our political history, this is it. The Republican Party, brand new--not six months old--will elect 100 people to the House of Representatives in the fall elections of 1854, and they will begin to draw together a remarkable coalition.<br />....<br />The Dred Scott decision also came down in the midst of a major American depression. The so-called Panic of 1857 broke out that very spring. The same time as Buchanan is being inaugurated, the Lecompton Constitution is being forged out in Kansas, the Dred Scott decision is going to be announced, the country is falling into a horrible economic panic. There are many causes of it.<br />....<br />Only three days after James Buchanan was inaugurated President, having just only narrowly defeated this new Republican coalition, news broke in Washington of something called the Dred Scott decision, and it would electrify the political culture of the country. It will fuel this Republican Party anti-slavery coalition as much as--in some places--as much as the Kansas Nebraska act ever had, and it will inspire Abraham Lincoln to run for the senate.<br /></blockquote>The Tea Party movement may never amount to anything more than a blip on the radar - I think we'll know more after the midterm elections this year - but doesn't it all sound eerily familiar? Spontaneous, grassroots political organizing, severe economic troubles, a fiercely divided electorate. These are interesting political times, no?<br /><br />*Yes, the fact that I spend my free time listening to history lectures officially classifies me as a nerd. You should try it sometime. It's fun! ;-)Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-30680047306361719732010-01-27T17:28:00.002-05:002010-01-27T17:43:42.876-05:00Rights for CorporationsThe Supreme Court ruling that struck down parts of McCain Feingold has been in the news recently, and a great number of liberals are angry at the ruling. Corporations, they say, do not have rights in the same way that individuals do. Therefore, the law was constitutional.<br /><br />The <a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2010/01/freedom-of-speech.html">Deputy Headmistress</a> has an excellent blog post about this (as usual). She quotes from <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html">Glen Greenwald</a>, who says,<br /><i><blockquote>Most commenters (though not all) grounded their opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in two rather absolute principles: (1) corporations are not "persons" and thus have no First Amendment/free speech rights and/or (2) money is not speech, and therefore restrictions on how money is spent cannot violate the First Amendment's free speech clause. What makes those arguments so bizarre is that <i><b>none of the 9 Justices -- including the 4 dissenting Justices -- argued either of those propositions or believe them</b></i>. To the contrary, all 9 Justices -- including the 4 in dissent -- agreed that corporations <b>do</b> have First Amendment rights and that restricting how money can be spent in pursuit of political advocacy <b>does</b> trigger First Amendment protections.</blockquote></i>But beyond the opinion of the nine Justices, there is a <a href="http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html">further problem</a> to that sort of logic:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want? <p>Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?</p> <p>How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?</p> <p>The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?</p> <p>Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?</p></blockquote><p></p>And, of course, as JDavidB states so well in the comments at the Common Room:<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">One of the fundamental aspects of rights is the right of delegation, the right to employ an agent for the exercise of your rights. For example, you have the right to free speech, and you therefore have the right to hire a printer to print what you want to say. You have the right to self-defense, and you therefore have the right to hire a private security guard. In both cases, you are delegating your right to someone else to exercise it on your behalf.<br /><br />If we cannot delegate the exercise of our rights to an agency, then we have no authority to delegate them to a government, and therefore government would have no legitimate authority at all.<br /><br />"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" -- the Declaration of Independence, and I agree<br /><br />A government is a corporation.<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /></blockquote>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-17061079932786365942009-10-12T08:22:00.007-04:002009-10-12T09:00:54.601-04:00Can Christians Ever Disobey Ridiculous Laws?(<em>ah finally, it's been too long since a Christianity + politics and junk and stuff blog post...)</em><br /><br />The subject of this post has come into my mind a few times recently, brought on because Harmony is pumping breast milk for a friend of our's who is staunchly committed to breastfeeding, is due with her fourth child, but has been troubled by low milk supply (I'm sure she's tried all the remedies) with all previous children (I think).<br /><br />Christians are supposed to subject themselves to the laws of the land. So says Romans 13:<br /><blockquote>1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. <br /> 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. <br /><br /> 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; <br /><br /> 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. <br /><br /> 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. <br /><br /> 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. <br /><br /> 7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.</blockquote><br /><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;width: 200px; height: 179px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_avUUQxpy30o/StMnN9fRHaI/AAAAAAAACKY/kmBDhMbq9gs/s200/762148_dripping_milk_5.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5391696299690106274" />Obviously we are supposed to obey God rather than man, so unless man's law contradict's God's, we are to follow it. If the government were to pass some sort of ridiculous law saying that any/all breast milk must be tested in an expensive procedure before being allowed the possibility of being shared, what to do in that situation? (Think that's too ridiculous to be plausible? Go to the <a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/search?q=cpsia" target="new">Common Room </a>blog and search for the term "CPSIA," for extensive blog entries about the subject) I have a bad feeling that a law such as that one would not directly violate any of God's laws...<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />Perhaps there would be loopholes in the law that Christians could find and heavily exploit, as long as exploiting the loophole did not involve any sort of deceit or illegal activity (notice the phrasing where I do not include deceit as an illegal activity, for if it were so, all politicians would be in jail, where probably most of them belong anyways). Then again, would that sort of interpretation/exploitation of loopholes be Pharasaical? Would we cease to be following the spirit/intention of the law? (then AGAIN, we are not dealing with exploitation of perceived loopholes in God's law, but man's.)<br /><br />Of course, some would say "but think of the CHILDREN...what if someone were to try to hurt your children by passing them bad milk...??? So we must outlaw unregulated breast milk in all forms." My question does not pertain to getting milk from a milk bank or whatever; it concerns getting milk from someone you know, from a friend who would never think to give spoiled milk to anyone, much less a friend with a new baby.<br /><br />I know that this blog has several readers (maybe even the vast majority) who are firmly supportive of breastfeeding, who also happen to have similar Christian worldviews as we do. You know who you are, and I would like to hear from you. I'll also take comments from people who do not share similar views as we do (and you know who you are) ;) What do you think?JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-9816132904706653162009-10-09T15:16:00.001-04:002009-10-09T15:17:56.181-04:00Just CheckingAre we quite sure Obama didn't win the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners">Ig Nobel Prize</a>?Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-34748185947925497052009-09-10T10:19:00.004-04:002009-09-10T10:31:43.201-04:00The Divorce Divide<a href="http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce">How divorce has largely become a class issue since the revolution of the 60s and 70s.</a> HT to my dad. Much, much more at the link. Please read it all.<blockquote><br /><i></i><i>"The divorce revolution's collective consequences for children are striking. Taking into account both divorce and non-marital childbearing, sociologist Paul Amato estimates that if the United States enjoyed the same level of family stability today as it did in 1960, the nation would have 750,000 fewer children repeating grades, 1.2 million fewer school suspensions, approximately 500,000 fewer acts of teenage delinquency, about 600,000 fewer kids receiving therapy, and approximately 70,000 fewer suicides every year. As Amato concludes, turning back the family-stability clock just a few decades could significantly improve the lives of many children.<br /><br />....<br /></i><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The good news is that, on the whole, divorce has declined since 1980 and marital happiness has largely stabilized. The divorce rate fell from a historic high of 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women in 1980 to 17.5 in 2007. In real terms, this means that slightly more than 40% of contemporary first marriages are likely to end in divorce, down from approximately 50% in 1980. Perhaps even more important, recent declines in divorce suggest that a clear majority of children who are now born to married couples will grow up with their married mothers and fathers.</span><br /><br />....<br /><br /><p style="font-style: italic;">A third reason for the stabilization in divorce rates and marital happiness is not so heartening. Put simply, marriage is increasingly the preserve of the highly educated and the middle and upper classes. Fewer working-class and poor Americans are marrying nowadays in part because marriage is seen increasingly as a sort of status symbol: a sign that a couple has arrived both emotionally and financially, or is at least within range of the American Dream. This means that those who do marry today are more likely to start out enjoying the money, education, job security, and social skills that increase the probability of long-term marital success.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">And this is where the bad news comes in. When it comes to divorce and marriage, America is increasingly divided along class and educational lines. Even as divorce in general has declined since the 1970s, what sociologist Steven Martin calls a "divorce divide" has also been growing between those with college degrees and those without (a distinction that also often translates to differences in income). The figures are quite striking: <span style="font-weight: bold;">College-educated Americans have seen their divorce rates drop by about 30% since the early 1980s, whereas Americans without college degrees have seen their divorce rates increase by about 6%.</span> Just under a quarter of college-educated couples who married in the early 1970s divorced in their first ten years of marriage, compared to 34% of their less-educated peers. Twenty years later, only 17% of college-educated couples who married in the early 1990s divorced in their first ten years of marriage; 36% of less-educated couples who married in the early 1990s, however, divorced sometime in their first decade of marriage."</p></blockquote><p style="font-style: italic;"></p><p style="font-style: italic;"></p>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-33956137151991561942009-07-14T09:13:00.002-04:002009-07-14T09:20:14.770-04:00Child Abuse?HT Overlawyered:<br /><br />As children they testified that their father abused them. Now, as adults, <a href="http://columbian.com/article/20090711/NEWS02/707119986/-1/NEWSLOCAL">they have come forward to testify that he never actually did</a>:<br /><blockquote>A 33-year-old son recalled how, at age 9, he was repeatedly questioned, alone, by now-retired Detective Sharon Krause of the Clark County Sheriff's Office. He said after months of questioning, he said he was abused to get Krause to leave him alone.<br /><br />A 30-year-old daughter said she doesn't remember what she told Krause at age 5, but recalled Krause bought her ice cream.<br /><br />Both children, who live in Sacramento, Calif., said that while growing up in California they were told by their mother, who divorced Spencer before Spencer was charged, that they were blocking out the memory of the abuse.<br /><br />They said they realized as adults the abuse never happened, and they came forward because it was the right thing to do. </blockquote>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-66739890661182472702009-06-29T10:34:00.001-04:002009-06-29T10:35:36.688-04:00The cost of Cap and Trade<a href="http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/06/such-sums-as-may-be-necessary.html">"Such sums as may be necessary"</a>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-82616524266197525292009-06-25T11:52:00.002-04:002009-06-25T11:55:49.445-04:00News from the People's Republic of California<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-san-francisco-rent24-2009jun24,0,568083.story">Landlords are prohibited from charging more than 33% of their tenant's income in San Francisco.</a><br /><br />Unbelievable - except that it's San Francisco, so really we shouldn't be surprised.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-32379783574326969012009-04-30T09:27:00.003-04:002009-04-30T09:39:03.168-04:00Finding AgreementAnyone who knows me really well knows that I hate conflict. I don't like disagreeing with people, and I would be perfectly happy if everyone got along perfectly all the time. When I'm listening to a radio show and things start getting a little bit tense with a caller, I turn the station off. You see, I don't even like to listen to other people disagree!<br /><br />So you can imagine that the previous 100 days have been very difficult for me as I find myself disagreeing with our top government officials on, well, practically everything. But last night I actually finally found myself agreeing with something the President said! It was a tiny little thing, but I am rejoicing in the moment.<br /><br />What did we agree on, you ask? That the border to Mexico shouldn't be closed to contain the spread of <a href="http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/04/obama-newser-postgame.html">swine flu</a>.<br /><br /><blockquote>The President said that was not the answer, using the arguments of top officials to say that closing the border now doesn't stop the spread of the virus in the <span class="caps">US.</span></blockquote><span class="caps"></span>I heard that and thought, "Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. There are already nearly 100 cases in the United States. At this point it's going to spread on its own here. Closing the border isn't going to contain anything - unless you quarantine Texas and New York and California and all the other states with outbreaks."<br /><br />As for the rest of the news conference... let's just not go there, okay? I think it's better for my health to just ignore most of what gets said in Washington these days, anyway.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-12205067977877313772009-04-21T09:39:00.003-04:002009-04-21T10:07:18.830-04:00A 0.0025% Budget Cut<a href="http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/04/a-drop-in-the-bucket.html">Woohoo. Talk about fiscal responsibility.</a> The current year's budget is $4 trillion. The expected budget shortfall for the year is about $1 trillion. And the president is excited about $100 million in budget cuts???<br /><br />Let me give you a real life example. Here at the JunkHouse, we have budgeted $300 a month for groceries. Let's say that for this month we actually spent $400. That's a $100 shortfall. If I handled my budget like Congress and President Obama, I would be excitedly telling my husband that I had saved 1 penny out of our $100 overage. Yay. $0.01. Now how about we talk about how we're going to recover that other $99.99?<br /><br />Then, let's imagine that for the last year we have been overspending on our grocery budget, so much that we've had an overall shortfall of $1000. So I go to my husband and tell him, "Yay! I've saved us a penny!" To which he replies, "So we're only over our grocery budget for the year by $999.99 now?"<br /><br />"Ummm, no. Actually after this month the grocery deficit is going to rise to $1099.99. But hey, it could be worse. It <span style="font-style: italic;">could</span> have been $1100."<br /><br />Do you think JunkMale is going to be happy hearing that? And, really, should he? So please excuse me for being very underwhelmed by the White House's proposed "budget cuts". Something more substantial, please.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-29154584647011944282009-02-27T06:56:00.003-05:002009-02-27T07:02:49.078-05:00"We're the White House and we approve this prayer"I read on Albert Mohler's blog that the <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3356" target="n1" title="Albert Mohler - This Prayer Approved by the White House?">White House is apparently vetting prayers said at White House events</a>.<br /><br />Since the White House appears to be taking over everything else, it might as well take over theological matters too.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-39264770632117707362009-02-17T10:32:00.001-05:002009-02-17T10:33:11.547-05:00Your Thoughts: Alcohol Sales on Sunday?(<a href="http://www.dawsontimes.com/news50000/oxendine-says-put-family-values-first-opposes-atte.shtml" target="n1">This post inspired by a prospective 2010 Georgia gubernatorial candidate shopping for votes</a>)<br /><br /><img style="float:left; margin:0 15px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 133px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_avUUQxpy30o/SZrX_gx2yaI/AAAAAAAABFA/S5xSguK-mlg/s200/1032639_beer.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5303788997312956834" />In Georgia, it is illegal to sell alcohol in grocery stores or liquor stores. I learned today that in some states, retail sales or other commerce are also restricted, to certain degrees. <br /><br />I don't think it's morally wrong to drink alcohol, unless you cannot control yourself and your drinking leads to drunkenness. Then it's wrong for you. I believe it is wrong to drink in front of someone who struggles with alcoholic tendencies. Personally though, I never really developed much of a compulsion to have alcoholic drinks on a regular basis, so no habits or compulsions of mine are at stake here.<br /><br />Alcohol seems to be a rather peculiar thing to single out. While drunkenness is a sin, there are other vices that are not banned on Sundays. Materialistic people can still go shopping on Sundays. Smokers and people who play lottery (puzzling people that they are) can continue their habits. "Gentlemens'" clubs can remain open. While I'm at it, I'll just list the text of Galatians 5:19-21:<br /><blockquote>19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.</blockquote><br />Yep, drunkenness sure is in that list. So are fits of rage, so perhaps some of us should not drive on Sundays, watch C-SPAN, or watch football. So is envy, so maybe it should be illegal for you to look at your neighbor's house or driveway on Sundays.<br /><br />My point is that it doesn't really make sense for a government that claims (or is supposed to claim?) neutrality in religious affairs to, well, enact religious restrictions. It doesn't even enact them all, or even enact them well - while you can't buy yourself a 6 pack at Publix after church, you can go to a restaurant and order up a cold one. I believe people here usually stock up on beer on Saturdays before big football games anyways. (I wouldn't know though, nobody I know really does the beer thing, so don't quote me on that)<br /><br />Of course, I am but a young man, who could be totally off his rocker in regard to this topic. What is your opinion on puzzling and incomplete Sunday commerce restrictions?JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-36629025070139697642009-02-03T14:46:00.003-05:002009-02-03T14:52:02.688-05:00Term Limits?<a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5">What term limits?</a><br /><br />New York Representative Jose Serrano (D) has introduced a bill to the House that calls for repealing the 22nd Amendment. For those of you who didn't pay much attention in Civics class (like me), the 22nd Amendment instituted term limits for the President. Here is the text of the 22nd Amendment in full:<br /><i><blockquote>No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.</blockquote></i>But apparently Rep. Serrano wishes to change that. He introduced the bill on January 6th, and it is currently in committee. Let's all hope and pray it stays there.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-59609331615548798922009-02-02T20:10:00.003-05:002009-02-02T21:17:29.338-05:00Seriously DisturbingFrom <a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/02/this-is-just-creepy.html">The Common Room</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>"A school in Las Vegas had children pledging allegiance to a huge photograph of Obama- an overhead projector image around 5 x 6 feet. A child came home and reported it, saying he did not want to go back to school (impressive)- and his parent actually didn't believe him because it's obviously incredible that any teacher could be so blind to the implications. <a href="http://newsblaze.com/story/20090127224509nnnn.nb/topstory.html">However, it's true</a>:<br />At least three of the five classrooms have an overhead projector and as the children stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the teacher turns on the classroom overhead and a full body image of Obama, with six U.S. flags behind him, comes up about 4 feet away from the flag that hangs on the wall. The screen is apparently around five feet by six feet."</blockquote>I certainly hope our President doesn't approve of such things (and for the record I don't believe that he does), but incidents like this are popping up all over the place. It is certainly cause for concern. How long before we are required to have pictures of Obama hanging in our houses, and a copy of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Audacity of Hope</span> on our bookshelves?Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-81777202250721655282009-01-16T09:19:00.001-05:002009-02-02T08:41:24.087-05:00Preparing for the CPSIAI'm sure most of you have heard of the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act. If you haven't, get yourself over to the <a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/01/cpsia-another-clarification-on.html?disqus_reply=5159067#comment-5159067">Common Room for all the latest</a>. It's a poorly thought out law that is already having undesired consequences. Connie says she will have to <a href="http://smockityfrocks.blogspot.com/2009/01/consumer-product-safety-improvement-act.html">stop selling her bonnets</a>, which I think is a travesty. Most sellers of homemade children's products who do not have such pure consciences have decided they will continue to sell, despite the fact that they know that after February 10th they will be commiting a felony to sell their products.<br /><br />(warning: sarcasm ahead...)<br /><br />This law applies to every single product which is commonly used by children 12 and under. The irony is that many toy manufacturers have no idea that they are even supposed to comply with this law. So, as a good citizen, I thought I would give the following industries a heads-up that they should prepare their inventory for the CPSIA:<br /><ul><li>Cardboard boxes. This dangerous toy will certainly need to be tested, for the sake of the children.</li><li>All sports products. Footballs, soccer balls, swim suits, jerseys... Since children start playing sports well under 12 years old, these now obviously need to be tested for compliance. Because we wouldn't want a 12 year old to get kicked in the mouth by cleats and get lead poisoning from them. (So they will naturally be testing the grass and astroturf where the little league games are played, right? In case a child falls down and gets a mouth full of grass, we can't be too sure that it's safe!)<br /></li><li>Bricks. Brick factory was a favorite game of Ramona Quimby, so it must still be a popular game, right?</li><li>Clothes pins. These potentially hazardous toys can be used as dolls if you draw a face on them, or they could be clipped onto fingers to create truely spooky fingernails.</li><li>Adult formal wear. Because "dress-up" is always a little girl's favorite game. And let's not forget</li><li>Make-up. Because what little girl hasn't played with her mother's make-up collection?<br /></li><li>Pots and pans and spoons. A toddler's favorite musical instrument! How can we justify not testing this group of products, which are typically made of <span style="font-style: italic;">metals</span> (and lead is, in fact, a metal), when fabric and wood are now under suspicion?</li><li>Televisions. Children now spend most of their lives in front of televisions - in fact, nearly every American child has a TV in their room. So naturally, ALL TV's now fall under this law.</li><li>Pets. This will be a tricky one, because the testing process requires destroying the object tested. But as pets are often given to children as gifts, they obviously fall under this new law. I can't wait to hear PETA's reaction to this.... But if pets get a bye because they are living creatures, then their accessories (collars, food bowls, etc) certainly cannot.<br /></li><li>Vegetables. Farmers will now have to test their crops for lead levels, I presume, as soil these days has lead levels that might exceed the maximum ppm allowed by law.</li></ul>And I have no idea how they are going to regulate sticks and rocks and grass and soil. But I forgot. Children don't play outside anymore, so they're at least safe from that potential danger.<br /><br />As you can see, the scope of this legislation is ridiculous. I only hit on the first few things that came to mind, but there are hundreds of products that a significant number of America's children use on a daily basis that could theoretically be subject to the CPSIA.<span style="font-style: italic;"></span> The problems with the CPSIA are legion, and it won't take you more than two pages of a google search for "CPSIA" to come up with at least a dozen more reasons than I've given you. <span style="font-style: italic;">This law was poorly written and is in desperate need of revision!<br /><br /></span>If you think I'm overreacting a bit, check out how LG has interpreted this law: they are <a href="http://us.lge.com/compliance/2008/november.jsp">testing their refrigerators</a>.<br /><br />And if you think that the government will never enforce it for small businesses, I would say you are naive. You need only look at how our benevolent government treats the <a href="http://www.peacechicken.com/2008/12/05/action-item-swat-raids-co-op-in-rural-ohio/">food industry</a>. What's more, we as consumers will now be faced with the prospect of buying illicit goods. Can Christians buy a banned toy in good faith? We are, after all, subject to the laws of the country we live in. And certainly, no Christian should knowingly break the law and sell items that have not been tested, right?<br /><br />Please, write your representatives and let them know you want the CPSIA revised or repealed. We want our children to be safe, but surely there is a better way to do it.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /></span>Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-18669334645155857432008-12-12T11:46:00.004-05:002008-12-12T11:51:49.420-05:00Auto Industry Bailout?UAW to Congress: Our members deserve to be paid more money than car company workers in Southern states, who work for foreign auto manufacturers. We don't care if that means our car companies aren't competitive with the foreign manufacturers, because the government will make up the difference, right?<br /><br />Congress to UAW: <a href="http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2008/12/an-auto-bailout-detour.html">No way.</a><br /><br />At least, that's what Congress is saying now. We'll see if the tune changes any come January 20th.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-1755912670563752652008-11-04T10:35:00.002-05:002008-11-04T10:35:00.842-05:00Shakespeare on the Presidential Election<blockquote>It is a tale<br />Told by [idiots], full of sound and fury, <br />Signifying nothing.</blockquote><br /><br />It might just be me, but this Macbeth quote seems to fit the state of our national elections perfectly.Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-69364922770030898702008-11-03T09:10:00.002-05:002008-11-03T09:17:23.339-05:00The Point of Presidential Candidates' Signs?I have seen more of these sorts of signs in our area in the past couple of weeks. <br /><br /><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;width: 480px; height: 408px;" src="http://minnesotademocratsexposed.com/McCainLawnSign8182008.jpg" border="0" alt="Image from MinnesotaDemocratsExposed.com" /><br /><br />What is the point of putting up these signs after primary elections? Anyone who is the slightest bit deserving of suffrage is already going to know who these people are. And people who have never heard of McCain or Our Great Leader Comrade Obama (hope be upon him) do not deserve a vote. Have you been spurred on to vote for president merely because you see signs with names on them?<br /><br />I understand why people would put them up for local elections. Such elections do not get as much press coverage, and these signs would be useful for fueling Google searches in order to raise awareness of candidates.JunkMalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02619673168896233941noreply@blogger.com4