« Talking Past Each Other on #metoo | Main | A New Year's open thread »

December 26, 2017

Comments

Social workers are plenty busy dealing with child abuse and neglect here in godless CA too...though I suppose here we're looking at intergenerational oppressive instability rather than intergenerational oppressive stability.

Based on the news, one could get the impression that child protective services are too busy putting parents in jail for letting their kids play outside or wait in a car a few minutes to protect kids from real harm.

Without any doubt a majority of conservative evangelical Christians is in favor of corporal punishment as a parental right (or even duty).

The whole corporal punishment discussion seems to degenerate rapidly into a conflict of extreme cases. (I think it might even be one of the earliest examples of what now seems to be our politican default.)

The reality seems to me to be this:
- one of the responsibilities of a parent is to teach their children not to do things which are dangerous. Which requires making the point unambiguously.
- beyond that, children need limits. Few things are more painful than watching a child resort to ever more extreme behavior, in a desperate search for where the limits are. It seems to matter far less how broad or narrow those limits are than that they exist and are clear. (I think it is a matter of security for the child, but that's just my guess.)
- especially when children are very young, reasoned discussion is a non-starter. They simply aren't (yet) able to process it.

So what all that comes down to is, a parent is going to need to be willing to both say "No!" and emphasize that with a swat on the butt. Not a beating, not even something painful. Just enough to reinforce the point.

That's a long way from the kind of behavior that Hartmut describes; it is indeed a duty, just not the one described. But it's also quite different from the "anything like that is child abuse . . . and ought to be criminal" view.

The stats say there is a correlation between religion and corporal punishment, but even today more than 50% of Ameicans support parental corporate punishment.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-opinions-on-spanking-vary-by-party-race-region-and-religion/

Just to clarify, after reading Marty's link. I'm talking about a single swat with an open hand. Not a " good hard spanking." Not using a switch or belt or other object. The idea is to make/emphasize a point, not to cause pain.

Absolutely agree that setting clear and consistent non-reactive boundaries is essential for parenting.

The emphasis to the "no" can/should be made through tone of voice, body posture, and passive resistance (timeouts or withholding certain "carrots"). You're exactly right: reasoning/explaining/arguing is counterproductive in the midst of a reactive parenting moment (I think this generalizes to conflict in all relationships, actually.

Even the mild hitting stuff is more of a distraction (at best) from the discipline: to be hit is to be psychologically aroused in a way that distracts from the child processing what's happening.

A good use of immediate physical discipline for a kid whose physically out of control (tantrum) can be a wrestling-like hold unaccompanied -again- by verbal stuff until the child has calmed down.

Research points to nonabusive physical discipline as being detrimental to child behavior (such kids are more likely to be violent and suffer negative health: hypertension, diabetes, etc...Again, nonabusive physical discipline.

Research

"Childhood experiences, both positive and negative, have a tremendous impact on future violence victimization and perpetration, and lifelong health and opportunity. As such, early experiences are an important public health issue. Much of the foundational research in this area has been referred to as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)."

Blah blah blah. Don't strike your kid in anger. Make sure they know why this is important enough to warrant a spanking, limit those things mostly to situations where they openly refuse to take direction, it works fine. Simple concepts, consistent execution. It is a choice, other ways work, less well in my experience. No serial killers in our family.

What's the case for spanking, again? (& can I respond with "blah blah blah" after you make it?)

“Studies continue to find that spanking predicts negative behavior changes—there are no studies showing that kids improve,” she says. And although Ferguson is not convinced that spanking is categorically bad, he is “certainly not an advocate of spanking.” Furthermore, there is a worrying body of research suggesting that parents who spank will later use harsher forms of punishment. “If spanking is not working, and spanking is all the parents are doing, then they’re going to escalate,” Gershoff says.

What Science Says—and Doesn't—about Spanking


Completely agree that a parent should not be striking a child in anger. This isn't about being angry with the child. This is about calmly making a point. Not a beating; punctuation. It is, I think, an important distinction.

What b9n said at 2:27.

Physical restraint might be necessary in some circumstances, but there is no real need or justification for any form of corporal punishment, IMO.

No. I get that. We're both discussing non-abusive physical discipline.

I think most adults (moi included, often) haven't cultivated subtle enough self-perception to know/admit that we are emotionally triggered when we are disciplining children, so I would therefore avoid using "don't be angry" as a useful rule.

What point can be made by spanking that can't be made through other, non-physical means?

I think you are missing one detail. For some years (exactly how long varies with the child) making a point verbally simply doesn't work. The message may get thru; the seriousness of the message does not.

Watch, some time, as a parent tries to explain to a 5 year old (actually anywhere between 2 and 10 -- sometimes even older) why they shouldn't do something. And the kid either visibly ignores them, or nods for a while and then turns around and does the same thing all over again. Over and over -- with the parent simply refusing to accept that sometimes words simply aren't an effective way to communicate. It's painful to watch.

Yes. Total agreement about most parents' overuse of talking as a component of discipline (although these parents are talking a lot to their kids generally, and that's good

The alternative to talking isn't spanking...it's other actions.

Ex w 4 yr old:

"We don't push other people" (sister) Say it once. Remove him from play environment. 4 min timeout. Sticker charts can work with pretty young kids too. After TO, go put a red sticker next to the 3 green ones after the TO. Later...Lotsa positive reinforcement ("you treated your sister so gentle when you handed her that crayon. Good job!" & "lets count the green stickers. 5! That's right, go get a cookie")

What does spanking add to this?

(Wish i could've always been this textbook. It's so much easier to play expert on teh intertubes, but i/we are dealing w our own "inner 4 yr old" while parenting.)

Now...spanking may be "no big deal" & lotsa loving and competent parents spank, obvs., but it's not "no deal at all" IMO

I'm kinda in agreement with Marty WRT spanking.

The kids that just get 'talked at', few boundaries imposed, will continue to push the limits with their self-centered awful behavior....

...and a handful of decades later, you get Donald Trump.

Pardon me, I'm trying to load the MegaSpankaTron3000 in the Time Machine, but it just doesn't fit, dammit.

I set firm boundaries for my children, and I agree that explaining why they should or shouldn't do something can be the wrong approach. I've never hit them, and can't see how that could help.

This, from a former front pager.

https://features.propublica.org/tyler-haire-mississippi/tyler-haire-mississippi-mental-health-evaluations-criminal-justice/

definitely _not_ saying that a good spanking would have solved the problems here but it leaves me a bit nervous presenting generalizations. I tend to think that a big key is to make sure that the parents don't have so much stress so they don't pass it on to their kids.

i'm not sure hartmut's point was about spanking, or not spanking, per se. ISTM it was more about an understanding of the relation between parent and child, and whether public institutions had any voice in that.

and, whether american conservative churches tended to land on one side of all of that.

FWIW, my own experience in that world leads me to agree with hartmut.

The kids that just get 'talked at', few boundaries imposed, will continue to push the limits with their self-centered awful behavior...

Indeed - but what does that have to do with "spanking" ?

The word itself is kind of dishonest - in any other context, outside of fetish, we would call it hitting, and it would constitute assault. Which is exactly what it would be in the U.K. were a teacher to do it to a child.

b9n is exactly right about positive reinforcement. For the absolute worst behaved children, the real problem kids in school who have suffered serious parental neglect, it is often the *only* thing which works. Boundaries come later.

russell, yes, that was my original point. The (inclination to) violence/abuse is just a symptom. Imo there is a huge difference between a single slap in the face in rare situations (If I had kids I know this could happen) and making inflicting pain a central part of 'education' (and declaring it immoral not to with referral to Holy Scripture).
I think there is an evil synergy at work with the view 'spare the rod, spoil the child' combining with 'kids are property and I can do with MY property whatever I want'*.
The occasional slap is no case for the prosecutor, 'to train up a child' behaviour is (and if the authors do to their own kids what they recommend then the belong behind bars).
I think it should be a warning sign, when 'property' is cited as justification. 'it was/is necessary' tends to be non-ideological (misguided or not) by itself unless followed by unprompted referral to such kind of reasoning.

*the 'children are slaves' mindset quoted above that triggered my original comment.

Btw, it's interesting to compare this discussion with that in ancient Rome where kids were their fathers' property. Self-styled moral guardians (e.g. Valerius Maximus*) raved about the good old times when the state could censure a father for insufficient child abuse** while someone like Quintilian, who saw beating of children as cruel and counterproductive, was a rather lone voice.

*I had the questionable blessing of reading his whole awful 'dicta et memorabilia' recently.
**which is a hint that most (upper class) Roman parents did treat the kids reasonably well at the time (early principate).

Note that it is now fortunately illegal in over 50 countries to use any violence against children:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment#International_treaties

I find the use of violence against children completely abhorrent and unacceptable.

Oh, and happy new year (please don't hit your children...).

... 'spare the rod, spoil the child' ...

Some people interpret rod, in this context, to be a shepherd's rod use to guide, not to beat. Though, I guess, shepherds might be inclined to lay about with some whacks if the guiding function was falling short.

Of course, that would be your good 'ol US of A that is among the nations that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Conservatives do not like that the Convention puts the onus on states (rather than families and religious organizations) to safeguard the wellfare of children.

This aversion to state responsibility gestures towards what novakant brings up: children belong to families; keep the state out of family business.

Children in general are one hell of a lot better off as the wards of their parents than the government.

It takes a pretty bad parent to even compete. Would your child be better off in foster care or a government run home?

Oh, no, it's just "their" children that would. "We" should be able to decide if "you" are a good enough parent.

Maybe someone in Saudi Arabia should help us decide.

Why would anyone sign an international treaty on how kids should be raised?

Government not as a nanny state, as a literal full time nanny. Of course then they get to decide who has children. And, of course, daycare is a right.

Bearing the resposibility of raising a child and thus having the right to decide how to is not owning a child. By the construction here the government would own the child. Really, that would be better for your child?

Same old stupid shit.

Wasn't one argument against the convention that it would interfere with certain aspects of the US legal/iudicial system, e.g. capital punishment etc. for minors? Some early recruitment of the US armed forces may also border on employing child soldiers (I think even some European had to adjust on the latter).
An important factor is likely that some prominent conservatives (e.g. The Newt and iirc the Pauls) openly object to US child labor laws (and mandatory education) and want them overturned as unconstitutional.

Why would anyone sign an international treaty on how kids should be raised?

Every UN member including the USA has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every UN member except the USA has ratified it.

Somewhere further up this thread there was a claim that Barack Obama was in some sense left wing. On the contrary, in failing to submit the Convention to the Senate for ratification, he was to the right of every other national leader, as has been every other US president since the Convention came into effect in 1990.

Marty, is your understanding that children in Germany, for instance, are now wards of the state because they signed the treaty?

Good for Barack, he did something right. Although I suspect he didn't submit it because it wouldn't be ratified. "Every remember of the UN" has done something means that if we ratify it, it most likely costs us money and lessens our sovereignty.

Neither us good.

Article 18

1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.

2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

CRC text

Those paragraphs are pretty much diametrically opposed in intent.

I read them as saying "Parents are responsible for raising children" and "states will provide institutions, services, and facilities that allow for parents to exercise these responsibilities."

E.g. Parents bring their kids to the doctor, states ensure that doctors and hospitals exist and are legitimate.

E.g. Parents feed their children, states ensure that food is available healthy (not tainted).

E.g. Parents provide shelter for their children, states ensure that housing is adequate and meets some standard for safety.

In other words, parents and governments have complementary roles in the care and raising of children.

Can you explain your "oppositional" reading?

Once government provides all that stuff it finished the parents rights. The second patmragraph isn't talking about tainted food, it's talking about acceptable food, acceptable housing, acceptable care. Acceptable means the government decides, in one paragraph, it removes any rights from the parents not specifically granted by the government.

That's backwards.

Shorter even, only one of those two complementary entities can be in charge.

Got it.

You'd prefer a world in which, for instance, parents had the right to NOT educate their children (or educate them unconventionally) or the right to NOT provide medical services (or treat them unconventionally) without state interference. Kind of like novakant was expressing: children are the property of parents and as such parents can do as they like with them (within boundaries: not including physical or sexual assault, presumably).

Do I understand correctly?

Once government provides all that stuff it finished the parents rights.

?

The second paragraph does not contain any of the following words:

acceptable
food
housing

"care" does show up, as something that state actors are obliged to support. Which seems like a reasonably good thing, to me.

Your reaction strikes me as kind of nutty. Unhinged, even.

I don't really care all that much if we ratified the treaty or not, I doubt it would make much difference to how kids here are cared for either way.

But objecting to this:

render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

because it "removes any rights not guaranteed by the government" is kind of out there. Whatever it is you're objecting to, it doesn't seem to appear in the text of the treaty.

First, you confuse the very concept of being responsible as a parent or guardian as ownership. I hold my SO's medical proxy but I don't own her. You are your child's proxy until they get old enough by societies definition to decide for themselves. Along with primary responsibility as teacher, caregiver and a bunch of other roles that the government does not have the intimate knowledge of your child to perform acceptably.

Second, I think we as a society have, in general, drawn that line pretty well. We have considered not educating your kid along with sexual and physical abuse as crimes against persons, appropriately. Not providing medical care is even handled pretty well(although unconventional care is a broad swath and often unconventional becomes accepted, so there is a different line there).

The difference is when it becomes the governments right to have a say on the day to day acceptability of parenting. What over the counter drugs are acceptable, or required if the child has a fever? What vaccinations are required? Did your child miss ten days of school this year, what do we do about that?

People parent differently, they live differently, they have and teach their kids different priorities. The convention says that 7 Billion people are required to conform to a single minimum level and the national government has the right to impose whatever restrictions or requirements they want.

That is not how it should work.

What vaccinations are required?

Not quite sure how you square this being unacceptable government interference with the requirement to provide medical care. I trust you aren't arguing that vaccinations don't work....

russell, the word ensure in that sentence creates an obligation and a right for the government. It is easy to just read it as an obligation, but that is not what the sentence means.

"and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children. "

This sentence provides broad authority to determine what are acceptable institutions(?), facilities and (always the most dangerous) services and how(and when) those are provided.

I live in a country which has ratified the Convention. The government requires my children to be in full-time education, with home schooling as an option. Other than that, I can bring them up as I think best, subject to not falling foul of the law against child cruelty and child neglect.

The Saudis have not so far expressed a view on my competence.

Marty, de facto, you're talking nonsense.
Please point to real world examples where the UN Convention has the deleterious effects you imagine.

Marty,

I agree we get the balance mostly right. Child welfare is more threatened by systemic factors (poverty, inequality, affluenza*) than by child abuse and neglect.

Pro Bono,

For the (US?) right, state coercion brings the specter of tyranny; private coercion is a glorious expression of freedom. For (US?) left, the reverse is true.

Russel,

I agree the CRC is largely symbolic but remains an opportunity for ideological confrontation over private vs. public spheres of power.

*Affluenza: Addictive behaviors, metabolic disease and poor health, anomie & social isolation,

In the US it literality takes an act of Congress to ratify a UN convention. And when Congress does act, the convention becomes a law of the land. A law that can/will be enforced. And can have subsequent laws based on it that are enforced.

I suspect that many countries can take an attitude of: "Oh, what the heck. Why not? We can sign the convention for PR value and then do as we please."

I agree the CRC is largely symbolic but remains an opportunity for ideological confrontation over private vs. public spheres of power.

This would be a more compelling argument if there were common, or even uncommon, examples of countries that have ratified the CRC using that status to trample on the rights of parents.

As an aside, here in the US no opportunity is needed to inspire confrontations between private and public spheres of power. It's a national hobby.

Used to be reds hiding under every bed and in every closet. Now it's feds.

We're a funny people.

Used to be reds hiding under every bed and in every closet. Now it's feds.

We're a funny people.

The funniest part is that those who were most exercised about reds under every bed are so often the same people carrying on about the feds. While making admiring remarks about Putin.

It's a mad, mad world. Or, at least, country.

Charles WT: A law that can/will be enforced

Not so. See Torture and Agression

An interesting bit of food for thought.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-own-cultural-revolution/2018/01/01/1f53438e-ef38-11e7-b390-a36dc3fa2842_story.html

For some reason, the point about the demonization of education really struck home.

As did this...
“Virtually all types of institutions, be it political, educational, or business, are exhausting their internal energy in dealing with contentious, and seemingly irreconcilable, differences in basic identities and values — what it means to be American,” he said in a subsequent email exchange. “In such an environment, identity trumps reason, ideology overwhelms politics, and moral convictions replace intellectual discourse.”

Thanks for sharing wj. I think comparing China's Cultural Revolution to our own hyper-partisan moment relies too much on hyperbole and papering over crucial differences.

What is so disturbing about the CR is precisely the violence and cruelty that accompanied it, and that there were no institutional safeguards against it. It was also not "bipartisan" (the "bourgeoisie" were not symmetrically purging "collectivists" in their midst).

Today in the US partisan violence and cruelty is (almost) completely rhetorical, largely symmetrical, and does not command the allegiance of the state.

There is, in fact, reason to hope that US society is becoming a less-cruel & violent place overall.

"Today in the US partisan violence and cruelty is (almost) completely rhetorical*, largely symmetrical**, and does not command the allegiance of the state***."

*Except where it it isn't, usually involving a mass shooting.

**Except when it gets 'violent', then rather Asymmetric (post 1980, to short circuit the usual ignorant 'but what about the radical left?1??' BS)

***"There were 'good people' amid the Charlottesville neo-nazis, said someone rather high up in 'the state'.

Mass shootings? Of victims who are or represent political partisans? Are you referring to Orlando?

"(almost) completely rhetorical" needs some clarification.

Depending on definitions, the number of acts of politically motivated violence in the US run from a handful to a couple hundred per year.

"largely symmetrical" is, IMO, simply incorrect. Virtually all acts of politically motivated violence in the US are carried out by folks on the right-wing spectrum. Threats of violence from those folks towards folks of other persuasions are a commonplace.

I've learned to just ignore them, but it doesn't mean they aren't there.

You know, stuff like this.

Maybe there's a cadre of liberals out there talking about making their opposites "taste their own blood", but I'm not really seeing it.

There's the Count, but he mostly seems to be an exclusively ObWi phenomenon, at least as far as the over-the-top stuff goes.

I rescind "largely symmetrical".

Russell and Snarki seem correct on that point.

But I stand by "mostly rhetorical" and "non-state sanctioned". The context was comparison to China's Cultural Revolution.

Virtually all acts of politically motivated violence in the US are carried out by folks on the right-wing spectrum.

If you restrict "violence" to violence against persons, you are probably correct. But violence against property has a rather different spectrum. Not sure if it reaches seriously asymmetrical to the left, but definitely less skewed to the right.

"Violence against property" isn't a thing (unless we're talking about critical infrastructure: water purification plants, etc...)

There are almost no acts of politically motivated acts of violence in this country period. Almost none. There are some acts by mentally deranged folks that like guns, but there is no political outcome intended. Most mass shootings have no political reason. That people with guns mostly have far right wing views seems to follow, but the acts are not political acts.

I can think of two in the recent past Gifford and Scalise, go back a little further and you get Oklahoma. Go South and you get some racist violence still no political point, just hate.

Not even saying symmetrical or anything, there just isn't that much politically motivated violence. Being "carried out by someone on the right wing" doesn't mean its purpose was political.

But violence against property has a rather different spectrum.

Yes, I agree with this. Violence against property is not-uncommon among current-day anarchists and anti-capitalists.

There are almost no acts of politically motivated acts of violence in this country

If we actually want to talk about this, we need some clarity about words like "almost", "political", and "violence".

If we're comparing being a victim of politically motivated violence to being in a car accident, or dying of a heart attack, the odds are really really tiny.

So, is it not worth bothering about? How many people were killed or injured by the Weather Underground? Or the Black Panthers? Why did we give a crap about them?

Does violence have to include bodily harm? Can it encompass verbal harassment or intimidation, or threats of violence?

If somebody threatens somebody else while yelling about how it's "all different now that Trump is president", is that politically motivated? Or just an asshole?

What about if they run you over with a car?

No point in even getting into this unless we can agree about what we're talking about.

Public studies, by folks like West Point and the FBI, put incidents anywhere from a handful to hundreds a year. Whether that's noise or not probably depends on what you want to call it. But the stuff they track actually does happen.

I'm probably out on this topic. Comments like "almost none" and "mostly rhetorical" just seem like platitudes to me. There are "almost none" of lots of things that we direct a lot of attention to. "Almost none" ain't "none". Either it matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't, no point in discussing.

I agree with a lot of what you say russell. I think we need definition.

But the context was the violence around the CR and that violence was directly political.

IMO, that is different and there isn't much of it here.

Circling back, the new Korean drama on Netflix, Stranger (aka Forest of Secrets) again rather refutes bob's blanket characterisation of the form, being concerned entirely with endemic and systematic corruption in the police and prosecutorial system....

It's also rather good (and amusingly has an actress in common with Oh, My Ghost).

I can think of two in the recent past Gifford and Scalise, go back a little further and you get Oklahoma. Go South and you get some racist violence still no political point, just hate.

Where do you put the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting (three dead, nine injured)? Yeah, the guy had mental illness problems. But at least one of the people who questioned him said the actions were "definitely politically motivated."

b9n10nt: "Violence against property" isn't a thing

I'm not sure whether this is just a definition of convenience. Or if you have had the good fortune to never be around a riot. Believe me, there may only be property damaged, but the violence is definitely there.

It's also rather good (and amusingly has an actress in common with Oh, My Ghost).

Lead actress Bae Doo-na also stared in Netflex's Sense8.

Compared to, say the US, Korea's actor population is pretty small. It's something like a theater company writ large. After you've watched a few dramas, you will see familiar faces in just about everything you watch.

Lead actress Bae Doo-na also stared in Netflex's Sense8....

Yes, she does a great stare...
:-)

wj

Quite the good fortune, yes.

So, if violence is a vibe, and such a vibe can be summoned via property-damaging riots (taking your word for it and imagining the truth of that), would you then allow that such a vibe could be summoned by other acts that don't involve bodily harm, including speech acts?


"Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence. When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you know why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence" -Krishnamurti

I've never found convincing the suggestion that speech, however noxious, is in itself anywhere on a par with actual physical violence. (If it's inciting violence, that's a different story.)

Not that it's not a real problem in some cases. Just that it's not nearly on the same level. I have the, no doubt elitist and cynical, suspicion that those who suggest that it is are merely demonstrating that they haven't been involved in the real thing -- one can only congratulate them on their good fortune.

Ladies and gentlemen, the leader of the Cult of the GOP, the person they overwhelmingly elected and still support, the great daughterfuckign embarrassment to the universe, Donald Trump:

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

Yes, not on the same level. Which is precisely how I want to distinguish between violence and property damage.

But I take it that you've experienced a riot (or riots) where this distinction didn't feel real.

In fact, perhaps we can both imagine that witnessing or even participating actual violence (say a bar fight) might feel less malevolent, scary, menacing etc...than something which didn't involve physical violence at all.

IMO, that is different and there isn't much of it here.

yes, i agree that conditions in the US are not like those in China during the cultural revolution. further, I agree that comparing the regime of oppressive cruelty in CR-era China to our current highly partisan atmosphere is more than a stretch.

for most statistical definitions of "much", there isn't much politically motivated violence here. that is not the same as saying that it's insignificant.

domestic political violence - whether in the form of ideology, organizations, or actions planned or acted upon - is something that is consistently and assiduously tracked by US military, intelligence, and law enforcement. as it ought to be. it's neither hypothetical nor abstract. it's a tangible threat. people get killed. it's not common, neither is it unusual.

it's unlikely that it's part of your daily life. not mine, either. lucky us.

as far as the CR goes, we have our own history(s) of political, cultural, and social oppression. nuff said.

as far as the CR goes, we have our own history(s) of political, cultural, and social oppression. nuff said.

The Cultural Revolution was about destroying historical iconography, destroying institutions, and torturing the olds. It's kind of similar to what's happening here, now. Hope it doesn't reach that magnitude here, now. It certainly hasn't reached it yet, but it's pretty creepy, IMO.

Since China was in violent turmoil for decades before the Cultural Revolution, the parallel with here, now, isn't sound. It still sends chills up my spine when I hear the R's talk about purges, and I see them making a daily mockery of Constitutional government.

Let's get rid of the R's, shall we? Voting being the first and preferred way.

Yes, those purges are scary. I would prefer we didn't get rid of the R's, they have a hard enough time keeping up with them in Massachusetts. Luckily for those they get rid of they tend to find them in odd places.

The Cultural Revolution was about destroying historical iconography, destroying institutions, and torturing the olds. It's kind of similag historical iconography, r to what's happening here, now. Hope it doesn't reach that magnitude here, now. It certainly hasn't reached it yet, but it's pretty creepy, IMO.

Why does the part about "destroying institutions" remind me of Bannon's avowed intentions towards the GOP and the government generally. Granted, he doesn't (yet) have a position which would let him do it. But he's sure working hard to achieve it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad