var addthis_config = {“data_track_clickback”:true};

Degerman Says

http://degermansays.wordpress.com

A blog that rocks

http://degermansays.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cropped-new-work62.jpg

http://degermansays.wordpress.com

The Blog

http://www.xul.fr/en-xml-rss.html

All you need to know about RSS

On the most holy of days on television, President Obama declared that republicans would get the chance to present their own solutions to the health care issue. In less than two weeks, on February 25, the republicans are invited to a televised discussion with the purpose of breaking the silence that has resided on this subject. Both sides are confident that they will get the better out of the discussion, but it remains to be seen who will come out the stronger.

While the people in Washington play out their cards against each other in a grand debate, the discussion continues on a lower level, a discussion that like so many others is based on greed.

People like their money, and when people fear that they are about to lose their money, they cry socialism. The rich want to stay rich, and the poor want to become rich, which is likely the reason that the people who would benefit from change the most, are the ones who cry the loudest. This is in spite that President Obama wants the rich to pay for the health care bill. However, during the past weekend, I gained a greater understanding of underlying cause of this debate.

Last weekend I had the opportunity to meet one of my girlfriend’s uncles. Her uncle is a man past his retirement age, who appeared well off, though not well-to-do. I have spoken to him before, and he had always come off as a rather liberal man. So we sat and talked, and then we got in on the subject of health care.

I told him I think it is a good thing that the president will remove the tax relief on rich people. Expecting agreement, I was surprised when he began to argue against me. He told me that people should get to keep their money, that some are healthy and some are not, and that I would not want to pay for poor people’s health care if I was one of the wealthy. Stunned as I was, I decided not to carry the subject any further. I tend to avoid aggressive discussions with my elders.

Though, I did most definitely have an answer for him; Yes, I would want to pay for other people’s health care, especially if I am rich and they are sick. If I make more than a quarter of a million dollars, I cannot possibly see how a couple of hundred dollars less every year would impact my life. People who earn those kinds of sums most likely spend more money on a Friday dinner, than they would spend on health care taxes every year. And for some reason, the champions of this lifestyle are not the rich, it is the poor.

Media Theorist Stuart Hall would argue that it is in fact the rich who maintain this situation. The wealthy own the media outlets and through these they are able to saturate audiences with certain stereotypes. By showing people how things are “meant to be,” Hall believes the rich are able to keep the status quo.

Most people would purport that his concept is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But if Hall’s words are indeed fiction it would mean that we have millions of poor and sick who will fight to make sure that they stay that way. To me, this is more horrifying than any conspiracy

Is he reconsidering his choice of car?

Tonight, President Obama gave his State of the Nation Address to the joint senate and congress. He worked his way through the issues on everyone’s mind; that is the state of the economy, the climate and eventually even the health care bill, all with a nodding Vice-President Biden sitting at his right shoulder.

The speech was spiced up by some sarcasm and sharpness aimed against the republicans, who recently gained the Massachusetts’ senate seat. The president expressed his firm opinion that this victory should not be used as a tool of obstructing decisions, but instead invited the opposition to use their influence in further discussions.  One may argue that the republicans have a tendency to sit on their hands instead of negotiating with the Obama administration, however, a sizable part of the blame the current stalemate in Washington should placed on some of the people who voted in Massachusetts last Tuesday.

What could possibly have gone through the minds of these voters?

The short-sightedness demonstrated by this vote is almost frightening. Only one year has passed since President Obama entered office, yet the same people who helped put him in office have now decided that he is not suitable to rule. Who are these perpetrators you may ask? I am of course talking of the independent voters of the Bay State.

Be it as it may that republicans vote for their own, which is to be expected, in fact they should be applauded for standing their ground. But what cause does the independent voter of Massachusetts have to turn on his president?

Could it be that he does not agree with the proposed health care reform? Because this was a policy that President Obama had made clear that he would push for, months before even the democratic primaries began. Or could it be that the independent voter thinks that the president betrayed him by giving billions to the big banks? As noted in commercials on radio and television, “there was no bailout for the people.”

What Washington did give the people were banks who kept the economy from being reduced to a pile of rubble. Washington also cut taxes and devised several other ways of helping the independents, and all Americans for that matter. Clearly, I am ignorant of the motivation behind this reaction. So, all you independents out there, please enlighten me. Are you upset about something, or do you just really like pickup trucks?

In September, 2009, the New York Times reported the case of Todd Marcum of Salem, Oregon, who used an electrifying dog collar on his 3 year old child. He was sentenced to only three years of supervised probation. Marcum is one of many who, every year, oversteps the fluid boundaries between corporal punishment and child abuse.

The Oregon citizen thought it was proper to treat his four children, ages 3 to 9, like animals. It should be duly noted that Marcum, who put the collars on his children because he thought it was “funny,” was not charged with torture as one would expect. Instead, he was prosecuted for criminal mistreatment. One mistreats a plant by not watering it. When disciplined through electric shock, children are not simply “mistreated,” they are tormented.

Although probation was not Marcum’s only punishment, he is now also forbidden to practice corporal punishment on children, which apparently is one of our “God-given” rights in this country. In many European countries however, it is considered the right of a child not to be hit.

The term corporal punishment is used to describe “infliction of pain as retribution to an offense,” which includes but is not limited to: spanking, paddling, slapping, strapping, and caning. Corporal punishment of minors is a practice protected by law in the United States. Yet this treatment when inflicted on women or prisoners is banned by law.

There are some state laws regulating the use of spanking and disciplinary measures against children. Oregon law concerning the matter says that “physical force is justified if parent/guardian/other person with the care and supervision of a minor uses reasonable force when and to the extent the person reasonably believes necessary to maintain discipline or promote welfare of minor.”  New York legislation is more or less identical, with the exception that NY law permits the spanking of 20 year olds.

Certain states even have laws under which Marcum’s practice could be considered lawful. This may be the case in Georgia, where the law says that corporal punishment is a crime only if it results in “physical injury.” Light electric shocks would cause no visible “physical injury” to a child.

One could assume that since there are laws against the mistreatment of animals, an electrifying collar would not cause unbearable pain on the wearer. Not significantly more than does a spanking with a paddle.

However there are federal laws that protect other groups from corporal punishment. This was pointed out two years ago when an attempt was made to reform California’s state law. Nadine Block, of Center for Effective Discipline, noted that “while we can’t hit slaves, wives or military personnel, children are the only class that is unprotected.”

What Block forgot to mention is that convicts are protected too.

Prisoners are, as children, subjected to the authority of their supervisors. These two groups have few or no means of standing up to their authorities. Although prisoners, at least, have clear laws that prohibit the use of force against them.

In Europe, several countries have completely abolished corporal punishment, the Nordic countries being among the first to legislate against it. In the US, some groups warn that if such action was to be taken here consequences would be dire. Christian radio show, The World, the Word & You!, correlates lack of physical discipline with “juvenile crime involving criminal violence and death by guns and drugs.” In the Nordic countries, no such change in crime has been seen since the practice was legislated against decades ago. In fact, the violent crime rate per capita in these countries remains lower than in the US. The assault rate in our country is almost twice as high as Norway and Denmark’s put together.

In the US, the American Academy of Pediatrics has spoken out against the practice of corporal punishment, and so have equivalent associations in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.
In spite of psychological experts’ opinion, there remains a clear lack of polarization in the national debate. The discussion itself seems to be nearly nonexistent as most people simply acknowledge corporal punishment as a natural part of a child’s upbringing.

Animals raise their offspring through physical reprimands. We, however, are supposedly above the animals. Therefore, it is unfathomable that we, modern people, follow the examples of the jungle to raise our children.

Even though Markum literally treated his children as dogs, I would wager that many are not far behind him.