The debate here is whether or not any and all spanking should be considered a criminal offense, subject to criminal prosecution.

If you think this is a good thing, please explain why. But, please don't start out with the premise that making something illegal will make it go away. We all know that that's simply not true.

As a parent who, in three or four moments of excruciating frustration, has resorted to a single swat to the rear, I would welcome a ban. It's not that I think I'm an abuser who needs to be (ahem) slapped down by the long arm of the law. But I don't believe in corporal punishment any more than I believe that wives sometimes deserve to be slapped around by their husbands.

Excuse me, but by making this declaration, you have just declared that you are an abuser who deserves to be criminally prosecuted in Massachusetts.

Who do you think this law is aimed at? Yes, it's aimed at people like you, who have resorted to a single swat to the rear.

Are you prepared to surrender to the authorities?

There are techniques that work with recalcitrant kids. Of course, we build more weapons rather than working with parents and teachers who don't know what to do.

There are techniques that work with recalcitrant kids. Of course, we spend more time introducing overly broad and unenforceable laws rather than working with parents and teachers who don't know what to do.

Thanks for addressing the issue. You raise many interesting points.

Holly, I don't think I understand your analogy. Of course, I have broken traffic laws. But, then I'm not out there railing about cretins who run red lights. And, yes, I would accept the consequences if I am stopped by the police.

My issue with Ms. Lloyd is that she has admitted that she swatted her kid, but then went on to talk about the man who paddled his kid 36 times. Under the law proposed Massachusetts law, if I understand it correctly, she would be just as guilty in the eyes of the law as he is.

It's like those ridiculous zero tolerance rules in schools that have kids getting expelled for having aspirin.

People who are questioning this particular approach to the issue of corporal punishment (criminalization) are not necessarily "pro-spanking". Please stop saying that.

Then, what's the point of having a law? Either it's legal or it's illegal. If DAs aren't going to prosecute every case, then spanking is still, de facto, legal.

Which way do you want it?

Also, when the behavior really causes a problem, then the DA can take action.

Isn't this already how it works just about everywhere?

P.S.

Holly, thanks. I guess this means that I don't have to spank you. ;-)

Geez, thanks for making me want to vomit.

Of course, I should know better than to ever go to Free Republic. Those have to be some of the vilest people on earth.

It's not just about climate change. It's about sustainability.

Go ahead and believe that climate change is not an issue. It's certainly your prerogative to do that.

But, the fact is that oil and coal are not going to be infinitely available, and both of those substances cause pollution of air and water. Add to that the fact that much of the world's oil is located in politically unstable regions, and also that China is going to be a major competitor for the supplies that are still available.

Do you really think it's a good idea to continue on our present course? Do you have any concern for future generations at all?

Coal is extremely plentiful (over a hundred years supply)

OK, now that I see that this is your idea of sustainability, I understand better where you're coming from.

So, what happens now?

C-SPAN said something about Leahy introducing a substitute bill, which would strip the retroactive immunity provisions. How will that work?

In fact, yesterday, I was looking at cappucino machines on Amazon, and it was pretty disconcerting to see machines that had as many 1-star reviews as 5-star reviews. I don't know how to reconcile that huge diversity of opinion, and it produces a kind of helpless inertia.

It's bad enough being confronted with 25 different models of something. The reviews can make it even harder to decide.

I end up cutting the edges off my brownies. I can't imagine using a pan that makes more edges!

But bar ethics also preclude lawyers from introducing evidence that they know to be false.

So, you're saying that either (a) someone has filed an ethics complaint against Edwards, or (b) he has been disbarred.

Would you care to back that up?

Of course, we know that, if you or someone you love ever gets injured by a faulty product or an incompetent doctor, you'll just tell your lawyer to go easy on 'em. Right?

Don't you think that, if a Democratic president sat in a classroom on 9/11 for five minutes (actually, I think it was seven), with a blank expression on his face, Peggy Noonan's head would have exploded?

If that person had run for president again, don't you think she would have been bloviating on some "news" program about how, "We can't have a president who spent seven minutes in a classroom after we had been attacked staring into space with a copy of "My Pet Goat" in his hands. Really, we just can't."

To Peggy Noonan and the serious grown-ups who listen to her, though, anything is OK when a Republican does it. Anything.

And that's the point of this whole thing. You can say that those minutes weren't a big deal. And maybe they really weren't. But they would have been a huge fucking deal if it wasn't George Bush. Just like Edwards, a Democrat, primping before a television appearance, is a huge fucking deal - to the point that it means he absolutely cannot be president.