For the record I am a parent who actually believes there is too little spanking in America But, I can not imagine how anyone would not consider the actions of the wacko in Minnesota not to be abuse.

I have worked extensively with abused children, and I have always felt about abuse, as one Supreme Court justice once said about pornography: "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it."

But, it seems that we are no longer capable of that type of insight. All pro-spanking parents should vigorously condemn the atrocities of a monster who ritualistically paddles a small child 36 times. They lose their credibility if they do not.

Libertarianism only works when people have common sense and good intentions, and that includes libertarianism in parenting. It is possible, thought I hope it is not the case, that we have forfeited our right to libertarian child raising, because so many of us are utter numbskulls.

~Becky

I think your analysis is correct. I have been saying essentially the same thing. But the problem is it is alchemy--which if it worked would shred Ron Paul's argument for a gold standard.

I honestly do not know what Obama stands for. I anticipate he would try to implement some kind of moderate progressive agenda. He is probably just another neoliberal like Bill Clinton (and actually George Bush, for that matter).

Anyway, this type of political magic may work with some (most??) people, but not this girl. I keep asking "where's the beef?"

~Becky

I honestly understand it can be difficult for you--but don't be a lame dame. Your suspicion is Truth screaming like a bangee in your ear. How you want to deal with it is the problem--not what the facts are.

~Becky

As one of Ron Paul's earliest supporters I can not sit back and ignore this stuff. The excuse that his homework was done by someone else is quite lame, but there is an example of one gem he penned himself. I posted it, and my comments regarding the whole thing at http://girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/2008/01/fuck-ron-paulthe-betrayal.html

No person with half a brain can blissfully ignore or explain away this stuff.

Even if Ron Paul has had an epiphany and realizes how morally reprehensible this stuff is--he should never have run for president with this baggage. It was inevitable that it would eventually be exposed and derail the inspiring message and stain the Revolution it spawned.

Ron Paul owes an apology to his supporters, Libertarians, the Republican Party and all of America

He should immediately end the campaign and refund all of his contributions.

The person who "should" win the Democratic nomination is whoever the Democrats want, picked in whatever manner they want. The Party is not created by the constitution. In fact, taxpayers should not even have to fund or operate their primaries. If they want to pick their candidate by flipping a coin, or a smoked filled room or a decision by the super delegates on who is most likely to win the general election--then that is the person who "should" win.

If they want to win, they should pick Clinton. To make it a solid deal, Bill Clinton is right, and Obama should suck up and be the veep.

The only people that matter in the general election are the voters in the five Southeastern corner of Ohio. If Kerry had won those counties, we would be looking at a second Kerry term.

It is safe to assume, that without even trying, whoever the Democrats nominate they can carry all the states that Kerry carried. With Ohio, they win. To do this they need that corner of Appalachia. Hillary plays well with poor and lower class white people,and the chronically underemployed--which are typical there. She, as you recall, did well in Ohio.

The only thing that can now destroy that dream, is if a rejection of Obama turns African-Americans off and they do not turn out in sufficient numbers. The Democrats also have to get a good turn out in Cleveland and the Northeast corner of Ohio. That is why Obama as veep would seal the deal.

~Becky

The reason UC-Berkley Law School should give the ax to Professor Yoo has nothing to do with academic freedom. It is because the legal opinions he has rendered are indicative of a profoundly incompetent lawyer who I would not even retain to bail my dog out of the pound.

The problem liberals have had with Talk Radio is they are always excruciatingly serious, shrill, boring and most importantly...

Not entertaining.

I find Limbaugh to be quite entertaining--though probably not in the same way his Ditto Heads do.

But liberals can not get the hang of it--as any discriminate listener of Air America knows withing five minutes of tuning them in.

But what I want are more evil libertarian talk radio hosts.

~Becky

You, like many of the pro-life demonstrators as well, miss the point.

No one should object to the president of the United States addressing the class--and in the process discussing anything he wishes. A University has a right to invite anyone they wish.

But, they should not be conferring an honorary degree on him, which implies approval of his body of work which does include, whether you personally agree or not , behavior contrary to fundamental moral principles of the Catholic Church, even if, in your view, those principles are quite marginal.