OR Republicans: Child abuse gives them the giggles
T.A. Barnhart
When you think the sick bastards have sunk as low as possible:
Over 2 minutes of this shit. For those of you who are decent human beings, it takes very little to cause brain damage. One moment of anger, and a baby can be damaged for life. So of course this is a reason to break out the music and dance.
The same blogger also thinks the imminent extinction of the spotted owl is a reason for gloating. You know, we really don't have to do much in 2008, I think, but republish what these psychotic, hate-filled wretches are spewing themselves. How about a 30-second commercial in Andy Olson's district showing what his party thinks about child abuse? Put these ... people ... on the defensive for the next 15 months by simply putting their own words out into the world. I think most Oregonians will feel the same way I did when I watched that video:
I wanted to puke.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 29, '07
"Before I lauged I recoiled because I wasn't sure what was going to happen."
You really ought to post the whole thing; to do otherwise is simply to post lies.
3:23 p.m.
Jul 29, '07
i provided a link to the post so people could read it for themselves. and considering it was but a single sentence, which you provided, i'm not too worried about posting a lie. in fact, since he said the video made him laugh, it's just that much more repulsive.
did you think that sentence was going to justify this?
Jul 29, '07
Perhaps we should look to our own house first. Sen Vicki Walker opposed the creation of the (misdemeanor) crime of child neglect in the third degree for leaving a child unattended in a running motor vehicle by responding that she'd done it all the time with her children. She's a great friend to the left, but I still say she weighs her own experiences too heavily in deciding what's best for the state.
Jul 29, '07
Just because child abuse isn't funny doesn't mean a political figure shaking a doll to music is also not funny. This video is not making fun of child abuse it is pointing out the humor in an unusual situation. If someone slips on a banana peel and you laugh it does not mean you are some horrible person who is pro injury, it means you are human and when something unexpected and slapstick like happens you laugh or make a joke.
Jul 29, '07
This Fourth Generation Oregon Logger doesn't think the demise of the Spotted Owl to be something to gloat over. My bet is Max never slapped a babbit in its life.
7:47 p.m.
Jul 29, '07
TA, I see you had to take your lies, from NWR, over here in hopes of finding a more suitable audience.
No one was "gloating" over the extinction of a species.
That was your decietful spin on a post concerning an Oregonian article.
And no one... Let me say this slowly, since you decided not to come back to my blog and respond to me.
N o O N E... Is making light of child abuse.
Need we start a list of just such videos and productions? Or should we all just settle on the fact that you are a liar bound and determined to spread mistruths about others?
Grow up a little. Just a little.
Oiy
Jul 29, '07
Yeah, TA, they're not making light of child abuse and shaking babies, they're making light of shaking baby DOLLS, as DEMONSTRATIONS of child abuse. How dare you impugn that.
Jul 29, '07
Wow, TA, you really do invent things to get exercised over.
I read that NWR post that you characterized as "gloating" over the extinction of the spotted owl. Huh? Just a little bit of a stretch there, pal.
Funny, there are thousands of spotted owls still nesting in California and Mexico. And guess where the spotted owls in the Nortwest are going? The barred owl and the spotted owl are breeding, with fertile offspring. The barred owl is more agressive and better suited to survival in the NW forests, and so the interbred owls are actually natures way of making the bird stronger!
No need to get all weepy for the spotted owl. It is simply evolving.
But a lot of people and communities in rural Oregon certainly have a right to be very angry indeed that their livelihoods and way of life was basically taken from them by a bunch of urban liberals, sacrificed on the alter of a bird that they now say is disappearing because of natural selection.
I think they have a right to be mad.
Jul 29, '07
I have to agree with Doug on this one. The person who made the video very clearly enjoys the comedic opportunity of a State Representative using a doll on the floor of the Oregon House as a visual aide. And NWRepublican was simply laughing at the video.
We can all agree that shaken baby syndrome is a horrible thing, and yes, even my GOP counterparts (who I disagree with 99.99999% of the time) would agree with that. To imply that they wouldn't, is silly. To imply that they were laughing at shaken baby syndrome is dishonest at best and if TA believes that's what the blog meant by posting it, then he is quite naive.
The truth is, the video has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact that a state legislator serving in an extremely prestigious institution, speaking about a very important topic to very intelligent and informed people, used a freaking cabbage patch doll in a floor speech.
That's the comedy. Nothing more, nothing less.
12:59 a.m.
Jul 30, '07
Marty,
I don't know the specifics of the story you tell (a link would be helpful), but I have a good feel for Vicki Walker. Drawing on personal experience is an important skill in politics, and she has illustrated excellent judgment on numerous occasions.
In the simplistic terms you use to tell the story, it sounds to me like you're advocating for some kind of nanny state that takes over the responsibility for raising our kids for us. Once all the laws are in place, we won't have to bother exercising our own judgment, just make sure we're complying with the law. Is that about right?
1:00 a.m.
Jul 30, '07
Marty,
I don't know the specifics of the story you tell (a link would be helpful), but I have a good feel for Vicki Walker. Drawing on personal experience is an important skill in politics, and she has illustrated excellent judgment on numerous occasions.
In the simplistic terms you use to tell the story, it sounds to me like you're advocating for some kind of nanny state that takes over the responsibility for raising our kids for us. Once all the laws are in place, we won't have to bother exercising our own judgment, just make sure we're complying with the law. Is that about right?
Jul 30, '07
What is tickling my funny bone is not the video but the shrill skreeking of TA.
More shrill shreeking from the super-shreek.
Shreek on, brother!
Jul 31, '07
"Sen Vicki Walker opposed the creation of the (misdemeanor) crime of child neglect in the third degree for leaving a child unattended in a running motor vehicle by responding that she'd done it all the time with her children."
Good for Vicki. While it's important not to neglect kids.. come on, let's get real. Leaving them in a running car is not abusing or neglecting them.
Curt
Jul 31, '07
Here's the text of the bill. It certainly is a problem to have a child unsupervised in a car. It's reasonable to perhaps limit it to a running car, or an unrestrained child, but, like allowing a child to ride without a seatbelt, it's a societal tolerance that needs changing. "I did it to my kids, so it must be OK" is not a sufficient analysis for someone sworn to represent the greater interests of the people of Oregon.
Relating to leaving a child unattended in motor vehicle. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. { + Section 2 of this 2007 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 163.505 to 163.575. + } SECTION 2. { + (1) As used in this section, 'motor vehicle' has the meaning given that term in ORS 801.360. (2) A person having custody or control of a child under 10 years of age commits the offense of child neglect in the third degree if: (a) The person knowingly or intentionally leaves the child in a motor vehicle; (b) No person in the motor vehicle is 10 years of age or older; and (c)(A) The person does not have a direct view of the child; or (B) The person is more than 50 yards from the motor vehicle. (3)(a) Child neglect in the third degree is a Class B violation. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, child neglect in the third degree is a Class B misdemeanor if the person has a prior conviction for child neglect. + }
Aug 2, '07
your dumb TA
2:10 p.m.
Aug 2, '07
Marty, the text of the bill is interesting, but it doesn't speak to your point. Anyone who knows Vicki Walker's work knows she is one of the sharpest minds and hardest workers in Salem. You characterize her words, but do not quote them directly, nor do you have any evidence for your implausible belief that her personal experience constitutes the full extent of her thinking on the subject.
Sorry, I'm completely unconvinced.
Aug 5, '07
Running car + unrestrained and unsupervised child under 10 = out of control vehicle with kid inside. (would you like to encounter a thousand pound projectile with a 6 year old at the helm?)
Whatever Vicki said or did, voting against this very reasonable bill doesn't seem in keeping with her usual practice of supporting the health and safety of children.
"...it sounds to me like you're advocating for some kind of nanny state that takes over the responsibility for raising our kids for us."
Are we back to the nanny state argument again? I thought we established that when the subject is child protection, the term "nanny state" could only be used tongue in cheek!
So I don't understand the anti-child protective services theme I've noticed on a few of the "blue" blogs (countered by foster parents, I noticed). Are we really in such denial about what happens to children at home in our community? The bill does not mandate the parent lose their children. All that will happen is the parent must demonstrate they have learned to protect their children better (i.e. always turn the car off when the kids are inside) and the hassle is soon over. The state prioritizes family reunification whenever possible.
Is this an unreasonable role for a government - protecting the rights of children and securing the public safety?
<hr/>