Chief Justice James Dobson

I know most Americans will sleep well tonight because they can rest assured that Dr. James Dobson is watching over their Supreme Court, making sure that only right-thinking people get to serve on it.

I have a suggestion for George Bush. The nomination of Mrs. Maier is absolutely silly. Drop it. And nominate Dr. James Dobson instead.

Why not? If Dr. Dobson gets to check out the nominees before anyone else does, why waste time on middle men. (Check the news — Dobson brags that Bush called him before making his nominee public.) Make Dobson Chief Justice.

Alleluia, praise the lord, God’s will will finally be done in America.

But wait.

Then he would have to go through an investigation by the FBI. And further investigation and questioning by the Senate Justice Committee. He would have to answer questions. He would have to answer questions asked by real people who don’t owe him anything. He would have to disclose information about how he runs his organization, who is on his board, who manages his money, and where it is invested, and if there are any legal actions against him.

It gets worse. During the confirmation proceedings, he would have to make public his views on social and political issues. He would have to explain his positions on abortion, birth control, sex education, parental discipline, prayer in the classroom, and all kinds of hokey stuff. He might have to express some knowledge and his views about Miranda, and due process, and habeas corpus, and privacy, and the Uniform Commercial Code, and interstate commerce, and the environment. He might actually have to demonstrate some knowledge and understanding of the basics of our system of justice.

And some Senators might be worried about going into the next re-election campaign (Senators are never “elected” in the U.S.– they just collect the cash for passing the right legislation and then get themselves “re-elected”) having to defend the choice of a totally unaccountable dingbat for the Supreme Court.

All it would take is one question: when deciding a case, do you consult the law, or your bible?

No, that won’t do at all. Let’s just let him have a veto over the actual nominees.


Dobson’s “family values”… doesn’t include any values that actually make family life better. If they did, you might hear him urge his buddies in the Senate to raise the minimum wage, which has been stalled at $5.15 an hour since 1997! I am not making that up. How much of an increase, do you suppose, top executives have received since 1997? How much of an increase do you suppose James Dobson has received since then?

Republican lawmakers, according to the NY Times, voted against the bill because they say they believe that higher wages can prevent new businesses from being viable, thereby reducing the number of jobs available to the poor. They failed to point out that they might also have more children, thereby impoverishing themselves even more.

This would be more entertaining if you ever heard these same people complain that giving too many tax breaks to the rich would end up causing them to do drugs or something.

Dobson doesn’t advocate health insurance for the poor.  He doesn’t advocate for safer working conditions or racial equality or maternal or any kind of parental leave for families with newborns.

Because Dobson’s real interest is in protecting the propertied classes, and programs that actually benefit families who are not rich would cost money and require that the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Dobson Advocates the Execution of Child Criminals

I am not making this up.

Dobson however is exuberant in supporting executions for children who commit capital crimes: “So the unchecked judiciary plows ahead. In March of this year, the Supreme Court struck down laws duly passed in 18 states permitting the execution of minors.” Dobson adds that these perpetrators, who were minors when they committed their crimes, do not “deserve” to live. In a moment of astonishing lucidity, Dobson admonished: “Justice Kennedy should be impeached for taking such a position, along with O’Connor, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, who have recently made similar statements.” The truth is, it would be fabulously helpful for everyone if Bush did in fact impeach those justices. Let’s have it out and let, as Dobson claims to believe, the American people decide who they want to be running this country.


Dobson’s main page.

Watch your wallet!

What’s wrong with putting Mrs.Harriet Maier on the Supreme Court?

Naw. I can’t even take the question seriously enough to begin.

By the way, if you found Margaret Atwood’s novel, “A Handmaid’s Tale”, a portrait of an America run by people like James Dobson, a little over the top, you haven’t read James Dobson.

The most charming aspect of Dobson’s vitriolic harangues on the subject is the way he carefully sneaks a fund-raising appeal into the last paragraph: send me money or America will slide into a moral abyss. Sometimes we should thank these puppet-masters for their own transparency.

Spanking

I had not, until now, formed a strong opinion on the issue of spanking, though I had decided for myself, for quite some time, that if I had to raise my children over again, I wouldn’t do it.

I did think that parents could make a reasonable case for a legal right to spank their own children. Who is the government to interfere in family life to the extent of telling parents how to discipline? As long as the parents aren’t too rough, and as long as they really do love their children, I figured, why shouldn’t they have the right?

But it has always seemed odd to me that you can’t hit a 250 lb. adult male with any force whatsoever without risking the possibility of being charged with assault, but you can hit an 11-year-old girl, or a four-year-old, or a seven-year-old, with impunity. The courts have spoken. Linebackers need the protection of legislation. Children– well, we better let people hit them occasionally because it might be good for them.

Those children will now never threaten to sick their lawyers on you.

It does seem odd. And never odder than when I gazed upon the photo of Victoria Whaley, standing in front of Canada’s Supreme Court building with her mother and father. Victoria is now 13. She was there with her parents to support the existing legislation, which gives parents and teachers the right to use “reasonable” force when disciplining children. This cute blonde was saying, I want you to have the right to spank me. And Focus on the Family and other “Christian” organizations were there to say the same thing: spanking is good.

spanking_cu.jpg (176691 bytes)

spanking_cu.jpg (176691 bytes)

Now, something is wrong here. Focus on the Family likes to sell themselves– which, in my view, is pretty well what they do–sell– as an organization that promotes wholesome, traditional, family values.

Like spanking.

I have often wanted to ask Focus on the Family some specific questions about spanking. How hard is “reasonable”? Bare bum or no bare bum? Should fathers be allowed to spank girls, and mothers to spank boys? Wouldn’t that lead to temptations? Over knees, or standing, or laying down? Should step-fathers and step-mothers be allowed to spank? How about uncles? Is there a reasonable level of frequency? Once a day? Ten times a day? At which point should parents stop spanking and reach for the Ritalin?

I mean, for heaven’s sake, if you are going to endorse spanking but you want to reduce the risk of child abuse, you will have to be specific for most people and give some directions, including diagrams.

The trouble is, there isn’t a single child-abuser in the world who could be trusted to know what is “reasonable”. But they all know, now, that the government approves of some form of physical punishment of children. The government says you can do to children what you are never, ever permitted to do to an un-consenting adult.

That’s strange. It’s disturbing.

I would bet that many politicians know that there is something wrong with this law but can’t do anything about it because they have to get re-elected.

Copyright © 2004 Bill Van Dyk All rights reserved.


Doesn’t the girl in the picture look a little like Marcia Brady from The Brady Bunch?  Did Robert Reed, Dad Brady on the most traditional TV show of it’s era, spank?

Slate Article on Canadian Spankers

Is Sweden a hotbed of lawlessness?  They must be.  Spanking is illegal in Sweden.  If you believe Focus on the Family and other conservative Christian organizations and churches, the only way to teach children that there are consequences for bad behavior is to beat their little behinds.  Obviously, a country that bans spanking must, therefore, be full of criminals.


Focus on the Family provides a tantalizing “how-to” on spanking.
Added 2006-07   [Awwww.  They took it down.  Why, I wonder.  Why?]

spanking_lrg.jpg (29681 bytes)

I couldn’t find the answer to my question about bare bum or not anywhere on that page. If you have better luck than me, let me know. It is rather striking that the subject is not even addressed, even though, obviously, it is a central issue in terms of technique.

Equally obvious is the fact that it could create some serious problems for Dobson if he thought it was okay to spank bare bums. Why not, then, just say no?

You tell me.