Spanking and abuse aren’t the same

“Liberals seem to assume that, if you don’t believe in their particular political solutions, then you don’t really care about the people that they claim to want to help.”
—Thomas Sowell, American author and noted economist

People’s Republic of California Assemblyperson Sally Lieber, D-San Francisco, has proposed a law that would prohibit parental spanking of children younger than the age of 4.

If convicted of spanking children 3 years of age or younger, a parent would face misdemeanor charges and possible penalties of jail time and/or a $1,000 fine.

Sayeth Lieber, according to Yahoo! News, “I think it’s pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child three years old or younger.” [Emphasis added.]

Now I will suspend my general disgust of liberal fruitcakes long enough to say that I agree with the aforementioned statement. In fact, I’ll expand upon it. I think it’s difficult to argue you need to physically “beat” (at any age) your children, spouse, pets or neighbor down the street—no matter how well deserved. As a matter of fact, I’m quite certain doing so is already a crime in every jurisdiction in the country—it’s generally referred to as “battery.” And perpetrating a battery upon children is generally referred to as child abuse, which is also a crime.

But, of course, the liberal loon from San Francisco applies the term “beat” to mean any swat across a child’s backside—which thus reveals liberals’ general predilection for emotional incompetence.

Much like “A” leads to “B” which inevitably leads to “C,” “spank” equates to “beat” which is “abuse” and hence should be criminalized posthaste. It’s a wonder liberals can claim with straight faces any intellectual superiority over conservatives. But then hyperactive self-delusion is within the province of liberal loons, which is why and how so-called independents buy into this drivel and what makes liberals so dangerous. If you’re for spanking children, you’re for abusing children, and what mean-spirited monster could possibly be for that?

You see, this is why a man can’t be fired for wearing a dress to work in California—or as the law is specifically worded: “Dressing consistently with one’s gender identity.” In the real world, people who are confused about their gender identity get psychological help. In the Granola state, they give them job security because clearly it isn’t fair to discriminate against people with psychological problems. (Am I the only who sees how utterly insipid this is?)

But then again, all liberal positions are based upon this supposition. For example, if one is against stricter pollution laws, then in liberal-speak, one must be against the environment. If one is against all-day kindergarten, one must be against educating kids. If one is against tax cuts, one must be against Joe Six-Pack. If one is against abortion, then one must be against women’s reproductive rights. And if one even questions that global warming exists, one must be downright stupid. (Or is that repetitive?)

Now clearly the conservatively challenged in the peanut gallery will—as they often do—accuse me of name calling. This, in and of itself, is another example of emotional incompetence.

And that, perhaps, leads me back to Sowell’s assertion.