Outrage over the Penn State child sex-abuse scandal has led to calls for federal legislation that would require anyone witnessing child abuse to report it to law enforcement or a child protection agency.Sigh. That is the lesson they draw from Penn State?
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced plans Wednesday to introduce the Child Protection Act, which would compel states to enact child-abuse reporting laws or risk losing some federal aid. States would set the penalties for people who fail to report abuse.
A similar bill, the Speak Up to Protect Every Abused Kid Act, was introduced Wednesday by Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). ...
Thirty-two states do not require all adults to report suspected child abuse or neglect, according to Casey's office. Instead, many states have in place a requirement that people with regular contact with children, such as healthcare providers and teachers, must report child abuse.
The Democrats will use any excuse to subvert the family, and put people under the control of social service agencies. Boxer is a San Francisco Jew, Casey is a Pennsylvania Catholic, facing reelection. Is that relevant? Maybe or maybe not. Boxer has all the same anti-family political views that other Jewish Democrats have. Casey is probably trying to avoid insinuations that he is soft on child molesters like Joe Paterno, the bishop, and other Pennsylvania Catholics. I expect a reader to point out that there are lots of other bad politicians, besides Jews, Californians, Catholics, and Democrats.
The article goes on:
A Penn State assistant football coach who, according to a grand jury report, saw Sandusky raping a boy in the football team’s showers has been widely criticized for not reporting the incident directly to police. He did report it to the university. In an email obtained by the Allentown (Pa.) Morning Call, the assistant coach, Mike McQueary, said that he did discuss the incident with police and stopped the assault.If that is correct, then there was no failure to report. There was a failure to act by the police. Even the current Sandusky indictment required a 3.5 year investigation. So the DA failed to act for 3.4 years. This proposed law would not have helped the Penn State situation at all.
What this law will do is to encourage busybodies to meddle in the lives of others, and for CPS social workers and other troublemakers to expand their authority.
Come on, George! Do you really think this is a political matter? If it is, it's because Republicans do nothing, especially for children.
Yes, of course it is a political matter. When a couple of politicians take advantage of a media firestorm to introduce a bill in the US Senate, it is always political. What else could it be?
I agree with your last sentence in that this is exactly what these laws would do.
The rest, notably twisting classic Jewish family values, which are quite family oriented I might add (having worked with and for many Jews) sound a bit Mein Kampf to me and erodes the credibility of any attempt to address the underlying problems of the family law system.
You'll note that a lot of other English speaking countries have very similar issues as we have in the US, such as Canada, UK and Australia.
I agree with a forum that will ask the tough questions but what I'm hearing is a bit of Weimar Germany in the late 20s blaming the treaty of Versailles' impact on their economy on "Jewish elements eroding society". Poor use of data (if any), reliance on subjective stereotypes, and bigotry aren't going to cut it if we want to get to the root of the problem here. And that is simply basic human behavior and the behavior of government that's been repeated throughout history.
Yes, Jews are usually quite family-oriented in their own community. I am attacking Boxer for the bill she introduced. Her Wikipedia page says that she has a 0% rating from the Family Research Council. She votes against family values at every opportunity.
Boxer is a Democrat, a Jew, and from San Francisco. Casey is a Democrat, a Catholic, and from Pennsylvania. Those are 6 facts. All 6 appear relevant to me. Are you saying that only 5 are relevant?
Yes, other countries have some of the same problems we do. Meddlesome do-gooders who use noble-sounding excuses to destroy family autonomy are everywhere.
anyone who gets a 0% rating from Dobson's group is OK with me even if I don't agree w/that politician's political stance.
How relevent are those facts to the issue, George? Might as well factor in their members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. That's a fact, too.
You did, however, just hit the salient fact that's at the heart of the matter: lots of countries have misguided do-gooders and those countries don't have anywhere near the population of Jews compared to the US. It's about certain people's basic behavior regardless of whether or not they're gay, Jewish, Democrat, or Republican or whatever irrelevant label you want to use.
The USA is only about 2% Jewish. The Jewish population is not the problem.
There is a war going on against fathers and families. The leaders are liberal Democrats. The promote ideas like It Takes a Village, and that govt social workers should have authority over families. When someone like Boxer introduces a bill like this, it is not just that she is incompetent or greedy, as you say that the court evaluators are. She is taking sides in a culture war. Her beliefs are not irrelevant.
...and those beliefs are....? Based on tenets inherent in Judaism? Or....?
Not sure what you mean by "tenets inherent in Judaism". Boxer is not relying on the Ten Commandments or any other part of formal Jewish law, as far as I know.
Likewise, being a liberal Democrat is not inherent in San Francisco. Not all San Franciscans are liberal Democrats. But about 90% of them voted for Barack Obama. It is a good bet that a San Francisco Jew will be a liberal Democrat, and will be in favor of expanding power to govt social workers.
"Her beliefs are not irrelevant."
what beliefs are you talking about? She's a liberal Jew from SF (Brooklyn, originally), your posts lately have been about Jewish stereotypes, and that some of these stereotypes, or maybe just the people who conveniently fit them, are "un-American" in that they want to destroy the family and don't like what John Wayne supposedly represents. Could you please clarify what it is you're driving at? And again, you use those old useless labels of liberal vs conservative. Worthless now. It's clearly statists vs the populace at large.
It used to be that I would see an article like this one, and assume that the bill's sponsors were motivated by a well-meaning concern for the protection of children. But conservatives have just as much concern for children, and do not propose intrusive statist laws like this.
There is a difference between conservatives and liberals. If conservatives support a law like this, then I will criticize them also, but right now, I am just seeing liberals.
they're statists. Boxer et al are the branch that wants direct control over the populace at large. The other branch is to support the plutocratic oligarchy and the military/security/surveillance industry. Which is mostly there to maintain control over the populace. Homeland Security? Give me a break, that's for domestic surveillance and control, not protecting us from some the enemy du jour outside the country.
Take your pick. Liberal? Conservative? Tastes great? Less filling? C'mon, liberal and conservative as terms have long ago been highjacked.
Post a Comment