Perhaps Strauss-Kahn Really WAS Set Up?

Posted: June 30, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Psychopaths in charge, Surreality, U.S. Politics, Violence against women | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 43 Comments

Dominque Strauss-Kahn

Lots of people questioned the convenient timing of the Strauss-Kahn arrest, and I pooh-poohed them. Now The New York Times is reporting that the woman who accused former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault is turning out to be a very different sort of person from the simple hotel maid she had originally appeared to be–so much so that the case against Strauss-Kahn is “on the verge of collapse.”

Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.

Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said….Among the discoveries, one of the officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.

Either the woman or her boyfriend, who is currently in jail for possession of 400 pounds of pot, has apparently been using her name to facilitate a drug dealing operation. She claims she didn’t know anything about all this, but she was recorded talking to the jailed man about how they could profit from the sexual assault charges against Strauss-Kahn.

They also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five different companies. The woman insisted she only had a single phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends.

Could she have been paid to set Strauss-Kahn up and get him fired from the IMF as well as dropped from consideration as a candidate for President of France? If so, who set him up? Who had motive, means, and opportunity, and who benefited? I see a couple of possibilities:

1. The Brits and Americans wanted him off the IMF so they could really stick it to Greece. Strauss-Kahn is a socialist and was talking about trying to help struggling countries. Obviously the Obama administration or some rogue element in the government had means and opportunity.

2. Sarkozy wanted to get rid of a dangerous rival for the French presidency and also to install his Finance Minister as head of the IMF. He would probably need cooperation from the Obama administration or the aforementioned rogue government elements to get the NYPD on board. (Coincidentally (or not?), Sarkozy was attacked in France today).

Are there other possibilities I’ve overlooked?

The Republican Tax Scam or why compromise the Cow when the President will give you the Milk Free?

Posted: June 23, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Domestic Policy, Federal Budget, Federal Budget and Budget deficit, Surreality, Team Obama | Tags: , , , | 9 Comments

I think it’s safe to say that no one likes paying taxes.  However, every one likes roads without pot holes, functional national defense, public safety and justice systems, and modern infrastructure that supports commerce, travel, and trade.  How can Republicans justify their just say no new taxes position when they themselves continually run up government spending for their own pet projects?  Well, that’s where they’ve decided to lie and say  that decreased taxes means more revenues. That’s also why our deficit has been spinning out of control since the Dubya Bush tax cuts.  Unfortunately, they seem to want to continue this disingenuous game rather than tell the Grover Norquists in their base to take the delusion elsewhere.

Today, the last Republican walked away from VP Biden’s bipartisan task force to find a compromise solution to the budget.  Again, the issue was the lack of Republican will to pay for anything and to stop paying for anything that the majority of the nation demands. This has gone beyond ridiculous to dangerous.   Let me point you to the Bloomberg coverage and I’ll bold the important part.

President Barack Obama likely will step into the final stages of talks to break a deadlock over a plan to cut budget deficits, his spokesman said after two Republicans dropped out of talks led by Vice President Joe Biden.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor cited an “impasse” over tax increases in refusing along with Senator Jon Kyl to attend today’s planned negotiating session. They called for Obama to take the lead.

The move caught Democrats by surprise and raised the prospect that the Biden-led talks could collapse over taxes. Republicans insist on major spending cuts, and no tax increases, before they will agree to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The Treasury Department says the limit must be raised by Aug. 2 or the U.S. will risk defaulting on its obligations.

“It has always been the case that these talks would proceed to a point where the remaining areas of disagreement would be addressed by leaders and the president,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One. He said the Biden talks “may or may not resume” and that he had nothing to announce on the next steps.

My guess is that Republicans want Obama to “step into the final stages” for several reasons.  First, the President’s direct involvement in talks will allow them to take political advantage of any suggestions they perceive as worth exploiting.  Second, every time Obama’s come to the bargaining table, he’s caved in or basically agreed to Republican demands.  Obama agreed to extend the Dubya tax cuts to the richest of the rich violating his own promise and stepping way over his line in the sand.  Obama also took every last Democratic policy out of Health Care Reform to the point there is virtually no difference between the 1990s plan American Heritage Institute plan first introduced by then Republican Senator John Chafee and later championed by Republican Senator Bob Dole.  We don’t have Obamney Care. We have the old Dolecare.  So, the Republicans have been fairly good at getting Republican policy passed without taking any of the blame. Why would they do any thing differently?

Ezra Klein explains why he thinks Eric Cantor won’t make the budget deal here.  He thinks its because Cantor will lose credibility with Teabots.

Cantor has the credibility with the Tea Party that Boehner lacks. But that’s why Cantor won’t cut the deal. The Tea Party-types support him because he’s the guy who won’t cut the deal. He can’t sign off on tax increases without losing his power base. But if he’s able to throw it back to Boehner, and Boehner cuts the deal, that’s all good for Cantor: Boehner becomes weaker and he becomes stronger. Which is why Boehner will also have trouble making this deal. It’ll mean he made the concessions that Cantor, the true conservative, didn’t. That’s not how he holds onto the gavel in this Republican Party.

One analysis of the House GOP right now is that there are two players in the GOP who can cut a budget deal: Eric Cantor and John Boehner (and, on some of the other budget issues, Appropriations Chair Hal Rogers). One of them is going to have to do it. Which means one of them is going to lose his job. The optimistic take is that what we’re seeing right now is a game of musical chairs over which one of them it’ll be.

But the pessimistic analysis is that if you had to write a plausible scenario for how America defaults on its debt, or at least seriously spooks the market, this is how it would start. After insisting on using the debt limit as leverage for a budget deal, the Republican leadership finds they can’t actually strike a deficit-reduction deal, but nor can they go back on their promise to vote against any increase in the debt limit that isn’t accompanied by a deficit-reduction deal. What follows is a lot of jockeying and fingerpointing, a short-term increase or two, and eventually, a market panic.

Cantor is putting personal power before country here, and in a very dangerous way.

ABC News explains that Senator Kyl has dropped out for similar reasons. None of the Republicans want to be the one’s to have signed the Read My Lips, No New Taxes Pledge, then sign on to new taxes.

A Senior Democratic aide says, “Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be a need for revenues and Cantor and Kyl don’t want to be the ones to make that deal.”

I still think that the Republicans would rather go mano-y-mano with the President than nearly any other Democrat. The hapless Senator from Nebraska–Ben Nelson–is probably the only other spineless critter that would be somewhat attractive.  The only difference is that he’s got no pull within the party.

So, here’s the Republican spin:

In a joint statement with the chief Senate Republican negotiator, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, McConnell followed up by portraying Obama as a champion of higher taxes at the expense of “a bipartisan plan to address our deficit. He can’t have both. But we need to hear from him.”

Cantor had sent mixed signals earlier this week, first saying that he wanted greater involvement by the president and then insisting that he remained committed to the talks led by Vice President Joe Biden. His decision now appeared to catch some in the GOP leadership, including his fellow negotiator Kyl, by surprise. And it came just as Cantor has been on the defensive in the talks over Democratic demands for greater cuts from defense spending.

Adding to the intrigue was the almost Washington novel orchestration of the announcement. The Wall Street Journal was called in to get the news Thursday morning — the editorial pages of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper are famous for their anti-tax orthodoxy. And Cantor made his move just hours after a Wednesday night meeting at the White House between his sometimes rival, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Obama, who are slated to take over the talks once the Biden negotiations have run their course.

I still can’t figure out how the Republicans can be so successful at painting the President as being something completely at odds with reality but they continue to do so successfully.  My guess is they will get the President to step in and they will get what they want.  Then, look out.  The incredibly low taxes will continue to do nothing but drain the Treasury. The incredibly high spending cuts will do nothing but tank the economy.  The dithering around the debt ceiling increase will drive market interest rates up.  In short, the current situation will deteriorate.  Then, some one completely bat shit crazy like Michelle Bachmann will continue to spin the alternate reality and the opposite of truth and facts.  To be even short, we are going to be incredibly f’d.

This feels a lot like watching a high school graduate do an appendectomy on your best friend.  The people that know what they’re doing have left the building a long time ago.

Tuesday Reads: Republican Freak Show, Obama’s Hypocrisy, and Other News

Posted: June 14, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama, fetus fetishists, morning reads, Republican presidential politics, Surreality, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Yikes! We're in big trouble.

Good Morning!!

Last night several of the Republican presidential candidates participated in a debate in New Hampshire, hosted by CNN. John King was the moderator. I have never heard anyone talk that fast before. I could barely understand what he was saying. He also talked over much of what the candidates said, telling them they were going too long. For some reason, CNN only allowed 30 second answers. Here are some media reactions to what the candidates said.

The NYT Caucus blog: Fact Checking the Republican Debate

On economic policy:

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said that while President Obama didn’t start the recession, “he made it worse, and longer.” Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, called President Obama “anti-jobs.”

While it is true that unemployment is far worse today than Mr. Obama’s advisers initially predicted, it would be even worse without the stimulus bill that many Republican candidates derided, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

On Michelle Bachmann’s inconsistencies:

“I don’t see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws,’’ said Ms. Bachmann, a favorite of Tea Party members who believe in states’ rights.

But then, after some other candidates said that they supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, she amended her answer.

“John, I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman,’’ she told the moderator, John King of CNN, “but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.”

ABC News: Michele Bachmann Steals Show at GOP Debate to Announce Presidential Run

The Minnesota congresswoman was invited to the debate as an undeclared candidate, despite ample evidence that she was planning a White House bid, and she used the first question posed to her to announce she had officially filed to run.

[….]

“Our country needs a leader who understands the hardships that people across America have been facing over the past few years, and who will do what it takes to renew the American dream,” Bachmann said. “We must become a strong and proud America again, and I see clearly a better path to a brighter future.

“For these reasons, earlier this evening I instructed my team to file the necessary paperwork to allow me to seek the office of President of the United States.”

From The Fix: New Hampshire Republican debate: Winners and losers Chris Cilizza says the big winners are Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney, big losers – Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain. Cilizza also liked John King (ugh!) and the “this or that” choices at the breaks (stupid!!).

Juli Weiner at Vanity Fair: Bachmann a Big Winner and Romney Is Bulletproof at CNN’s Republican Debate Here’s what Weiner had to say about Newt:

Most Obviously Disinterested

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared sullen, and his answers were notably terse. He seemed most excited about two things: talking about NASA—Gingrich is a longtime admirer of outer space—and when King asked him to choose between Dancing With the Stars and American Idol. For the record, he choose the latter—although how long until divorces it in favor of its younger, flashier update, The Voice?

We were wondering if Gingrich’s disgruntled former staff organized a watching party tonight? And if so, what was the drinking game like?

She loved Romney’s facial expression when Herman Cain was talking abut his muslim phobia.

Most Comically Skeptical Face
For a fleeting, glorious moment during Cain’s exposition about “peaceful” Muslims versus Muslims “who are trying to kill us,” the split-screen showed Romney making a face not dissimilar to the one your blogger was making—a face one might make after eating a lemon-soaked pickle, or a slice of Godfather’s Pizza. “Romney’s face during Herman Cain’s answer might just have won my vote,” Ezra Klein of The Washington Post tweeted. Romney’s rejoinder to Cain’s response was measured: “Of course Sharia Law isn’t going to be applied in our courts,” he said. “Our country was founded on a principle of religious tolerance.”

This isn’t a reaction to the debate, but is very relevant to the Republican candidates and their so-called economic policies: American Chronicle: Grover pulls GOP strings

Today’s Republicans love to point out that President John F. Kennedy saw the wisdom of tax cuts when he reduced the top income tax rate. However, congressional Republicans at the time were worried that this would cause a budget deficit. President Dwight Eisenhower supported the continuation of high wartime taxes to reduce the nation’s debt. President Richard Nixon defended the continuation of a surtax to pay for the Vietnam War. Fearing deficits, President Gerald Ford opposed a permanent tax cut.

All of these leaders would be RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) today, because they put balanced budgets ahead of cutting taxes. President Ronald Reagan remains a hero, but that’s because his rhetoric on taxes and smaller government is beloved. Never mind that he agreed to several tax increases (including a huge hike in the payroll tax that rescued Social Security for decades to come), never once proposed a balanced budget and oversaw an expansion of the federal government. The Reagan tax hikes were a responsible response to growing imbalances, but they would be shot down today.

The bipartisan national debt commission and the Gang of Six (now down to five senators) are looking at a simpler tax code that would widen the tax base, lower rates and eliminate many deductions as part of a debt and deficit solution, which includes significant spending cuts. But because this would increase revenue overall, the grand poo-bah of anti-tax purity has declared that this must be opposed by any politician who has signed a pledge to never raise taxes. He Who Must Be Obeyed is Grover Norquist, who invented the tax pledge and is the head of Americans for Tax Reform.

In other news, President Obama opened his big mouth and said that Anthony Weiner should resign.

In an interview that will air on the Today show on Tuesday morning, Obama said that Weiner’s online exchanges with women were “highly inappropriate” and that he “embarrassed himself.” And while Obama said the decision about leaving Congress would ultimately be up to him and his constituents, he made his own preference clear.

“When you get to the point where, because of various personal distractions, you can’t serve as effectively as you need to, at the time when people are worrying about jobs, and their mortgages, and paying the bills—then you should probably step back,’’ Obama said.

Frankly, I think a President who hasn’t done diddly-squat about jobs or foreclosures should step back. Maybe he’s distracted by all those White House parties and so many vacations. If I had failed as badly as Obama has, I’d resign.

This is a horrifying story from Think Progress: JP Morgan Records Largest Profit Ever, While Community Devastated By Its Predatory Lending Sheds 1,000 Workers

One of the many tragic stories of the Great Recession involves Jefferson County, Alabama. As Matt Taibbi explained in an article in Rolling Stone last year, mega bank JP Morgan Chase used a predatory refinancing deal on sewer bonds to reap billions while the local area was financially devastated.

Now, Jefferson County, still reeling from the effects of JP Morgan’s dirty deals, is moving to place nearly 1,000 public workers on administrative leave without pay, as the state Legislature failed last week to come to the municipality’s aid with any fiscal support. In doing so, the county hopes to save “just over $12 million.”

Yet while the public workers of Jefferson County will soon face the prospect of losing their wages and livelihoods through no fault of their own, JP Morgan Chase continues to rake in lavish profits. In 2010, the mega bank posted a profit of a whopping $17.4 billion; during this past quarter, the bank “reported the biggest quarterly profit in its history,” with a 67 percent rise in net income.

I’ll end with some provincialism: Bruins dominate the Canucks, force Game 7

The Boston Bruins beat the Vancouver Canucks 5-2 in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals at the Boston Garden. That makes the two teams tied 3-3. Game 7 should be a doozey. The last time the Bruins won the Stanley Cup was in 1972.

So what are you reading and blogging about today?

Weiner Agrees to Seek Treatment

Posted: June 11, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Democratic Politics, Surreality, The DNC, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 48 Comments

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

The New York Times is reporting that Rep. Anthony Weiner is going to go into rehab for his alleged Twitter/Facebook/texting compulsion.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Weiner said he would request a leave of absence from the House and seek treatment, but provided no further details.

“Congressman Weiner departed this morning to seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better husband and healthier person,” said the spokeswoman, Risa Heller. “In light of that, he will request a short leave of absence from the House of Representatives so that he can get evaluated and map out a course of treatment to make himself well.

“Congressman Weiner takes the views of his colleagues very seriously and has determined that he needs this time to get healthy and make the best decision possible for himself, his family and his constituents.”

I’m sure Weiner could use some therapy, but I still don’t get why he is being singled out for this kind of public outrage when David Vitter wasn’t. As far as we know Weiner didn’t act out any of his fantasies with these women. I would think that hiring prostitutes to spank you when you’re wearing diapers would elicit more calls for “treatment” than Twitter and Facebook flirtations. But what do I know? Maybe a lot of Congressman like to wear diapers and have sex with prostitutes.

Apparently, the final straw for Democrats was the revelation that Weiner tweeted a 17-year-old Delaware girl, even though the girl’s mother said Weiner had not said anything inappropriate in these Twitter messages.

Delaware police said Friday they were investigating the reported communications, had interviewed the teen, and that “she has made no disclosure of criminal activity nor inappropriate contact by the Congressman.”

Neverthless Weiner’s colleagues in Congress are horrified and outraged. Here is what DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to say:

“It is with great disappointment that I call on Representative Anthony Weiner to resign,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement issued by the Democratic National Committee, which she has led since the beginning of May. She’s President Barack Obama’s representative as DNC chairwoman.

“The behavior he has exhibited is indefensible and Representative Weiner’s continued service in Congress is untenable.

“This sordid affair has become an unacceptable distraction for Representative Weiner, his family, his constituents and the House – and for the good of all, he should step aside and address those things that should be most important: his and his family’s well-being.”

According to Fox News, the police in Delaware are still investigating. The girls parents have turned her laptop over for inspection, but their attorney says there’s nothing to find.

“The Tweets in question between the student in question and the congressman were not salacious or in any manner inappropriate, said Daniel McElhatton, the attorney representing the girl’s family. “No photographs were ever sent to her or from her.”

Weiner spokeswoman Risa Heller also said that Weiner’s interactions with the girl “were neither explicit nor indecent.”

The police are trying to verify that, McElhatton said.

Fox News claims to have been told by “sources” that much of the interchange between the girl and Weiner had been deleted from her computer. Fox is obviously hoping the police can find something salacious on the girl’s hard drive. I sure hope Weiner didn’t send anything sexual or suggestive to her.

The girl’s high school posted on her now defunct Tumblr blog a quote that appears to be from her direct messages with Weiner.

“I came back strong. Large. In charge. Tights and cape s—… My favorite congressman,” she wrote, adding a heart emoticon after “congressman.”

Seven days earlier, she posted a YouTube video of Weiner giving a speech and wrote, “My true love.”

Poor kid. It’s a shame she had to get dragged into this.

As an antidote to having to watch politicians call for their smelling salts and fainting couches, I recommend this story from NPR’s Weekend Edition: Zombies Walk the Halls of Congress.

NPR can now confirm that there are zombies in the U.S. Capitol.

OK, not the kind that pop out of graves and eat brains, but a different kind of undead — the undead political career. This week New York Rep. Anthony Weiner said he is staying put, even though some top Democrats have publicly called for him to resign.

He’s not the first one to stay in politics after serious ethics violations, trying to revive a seemingly lifeless career.

In this contrived scenario, there are three categories of Congressional Zombies:

— those who survived a scandal to live again,
— those who are wounded by scandal but stay in Congress (the real zombies),
— and those who hung on for a while but eventually got buried.

According to NPR, both Charlie Rangel and David Vitter are real zombies.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who was a client of a Washington prostitution ring. He was never charged because the news came out after the statute of limitations had expired. Two of Vitter’s calls to the madam were made during votes on the floor.

He apologized in 2007 — “I want to again offer my deep sincere apologies to all those who I’ve let down and disappointed with these actions from my past” — and neatly won a second term in the Senate.

Good grief! Vitter called the DC Madam from the Senate floor? Did he get a sudden urge for punishment? Please explain to me why he didn’t need to enter a treatment facility after his colleagues learned about his illegal behavior?

I’m pretty disgusted by Weiner’s behavior at this point, but I still wish I never had had to find out about it. I still don’t see any reason why it needed to be revealed either. Sure the guy acted like a silly adolescent, but how many of us would look dignified if our sexual fantasies were spread all over the internet and the media? I think this kind of scandal-mongering has gone way too far, and I’d like to see a lot more approbation about Andrew Breitbart’s repulsive behavior. I’d also like to see similar outrage against Congresspeople who take money from lobbyists and vote accordingly.

This scandal appears to be setting a whole new precedent for the kinds of activities that can get a politician in trouble. As far as we know, Weiner’s activities were all in cyberspace. Now if it turns out he behaved inappropriately with an underage girl, I’ll have to revise my opinion.

Battle to Save Corporal Punishment In New Orleans Catholic School

Posted: June 1, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: children, Civil Rights, physical abuse, Surreality, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments

Do you get the feeling the bad old days are coming back? U.S. economy has returned us to 1930s-style levels of unemployment, evil Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are trying to recreate the poverty of those years by removing the social safety net, and Republicans are working as hard as they can to make sure women have no control over their bodies or their lives.

Now we have students of a Catholic school in New Orleans and their parents demanding Archbishop Gregory Aymond reverse his decision to end corporal punishment, and school alumni aresuing the educational consultant who recommended the policy change!

Can this really be the 21st Century?

From yesterday’s New Orleans Times-Picayune:

The controversy over corporal punishment at St. Augustine High School resurfaced Tuesday when several alumni sued a consultant [read the suit here (pdf)] who advised Archbishop Gregory Aymond that St. Augustine students had been injured by paddling.

The claim isn’t true, the alumni said.

For months Aymond, who as archbishop exerts some control over the Catholic school, has sought to end St. Augustine’s decades-old practice of paddling students. He has said it is not consistent with Catholic values.

But backers of corporal punishment, who include St. Augustine administrators, parents and alumni, say it is part of St. Augustine’s formula for success.

According to the story, the consultant, Monica Applewhite, convinced the Archbishop to ban paddling of students against the decision of the review committee.

In late 2009 Aymond asked Monica Applewhite, described as a educational safety consultant based in Austin, Texas, to look into discipline at St. Augustine.

As Aymond’s representative, Applewhite sat in on St. Augustine’s internal review of its corporal punishment policy. The review committee elected to continue the policy, with modifications.

But the lawsuit says that Applewhite privately advised Aymond that she learned during her inquiry that parents had taken three students to the hospital after paddling, and that others had been paddled “day after day and more than 5 or 6 times a day.”

Archbishop Aymond says he has been contacted by former students and parents of students who were injured by corporal punishment in the school. He made this statement at a news conference today:

“I feel it necessary at this time to share that since the issue of paddling at St. Augustine has become public, I have been contacted both in writing and in person by individuals and parents of individual students who were injured as a result of being paddled at school,” Aymond said in a statement. “Those who have shared this information with me have done so in confidence, but at this juncture, the public should know that my concerns over paddling at St. Augustine go beyond Dr. Applewhite’s report to first-hand accounts.”

I also want to point out that paddling at St. Augustine’s is routinely used to discipline students for such shocking infractions as “tardiness, sloppy uniform dress or other minor rules infractions.”

Frankly, I thought that corporal punishment had been eliminated in the U.S. But I was wrong. According to this report on corporal punishment research, paddling is still common in a number of states.

The US Supreme Court decided in 1977 that spanking or paddling by schools is lawful where it has not been explicitly outlawed by local authorities. It is true that the incidence of CP has declined sharply in recent years, but only 31 states (plus D.C. and Puerto Rico) have actually abolished it, either de facto or de jure. CP is still used in the other 19 states, and it remains a fairly common practice in three of them, all in the South: Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi.

It is also routine, but only in a minority of (often rural or small-town) schools, in five more southern states: Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.

The latest states to abolish were Delaware, in 2003, after an eight-year gap in which no abolitions took place at state level; Pennsylvania, in 2005; Ohio, in 2009; and now in 2011 New Mexico (documentation in next update). The number of paddlings had already fallen to a low level in these states.

On the other hand, efforts to ban school CP by legislation have failed in 2003 in Wyoming and repeatedly in Missouri, and also in North Carolina in 2007 and Louisiana in 2009.

The New York Times had a story about corporal punishment in September 2006. This chart was published with the article.

The pattern suggests that corporal punishment is more accepted in southern states and red states. Perhaps there is something to notion that Republicans and conservatives generally tend toward authoritarianism.

In my opinion, paddling is child abuse and should be illegal. Furthermore, I think children have rights just like adults do. I guess if the Supreme Court disagrees with me, our only hope is for sanity in state legislatures. Good luck with that.

Thanks to Dakinikat for alerting me to this story.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →