Comments on: Did I Exaggerate Obama’s Machiavellian Science?

By: Tim Anderson

Tim Anderson — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:55:30 +0000

Mr. Harper, I would be willing to stigmatize those who make less than $200,000 if there were statistics that said those who made less were more likely to abuse children, but they don’t. Doing “well” in life is not the same thing as placing a child in a situation that is significantly more likely to endanger the children in that situation. I don’t happen to make $ 100,000 and my children were neither abused nor kept from succeeding as a result, but I deal almost daily with the struggles of young women and their children. It is not a matter of stigmatizing them, but of being aware of the risks of live in boyfriends, poverty and homelessness that might make us want to do exactly what the bill called for, to educate and inform. I have spoken with a judge and two lawyers and they think your claim about the bill just plain silly.

By: Kate Pitrone

Kate Pitrone — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:28:28 +0000

Mr. Harper, Google-search “Child Abuse and the Boyfriend” and look at available statistics.

By: SoConBaby

SoConBaby — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:21:16 +0000

Correction: McCain was the defense hawk.

By: SoConBaby

SoConBaby — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:19:01 +0000

“Romney left the Evangelical turnout mostly to chance.”

Take a look at the last two Republican primaries, especially 2008. Romney represented the fiscal conservative leg of the stool; McCain was the fiscal hawk; Huckabee was the social conservative. Perhaps the social conservative group is not the largest, but it has consistently been the second-strongest part of the party. Both McCain and Romney had questionable credibility as social conservatives, and the Republicans lost. George Bush the younger, on the other hand, was a plausibly credible social conservative and he won twice. The Republicans cannot win a general election without the support of the Huckabee/Santorum constituency.

Mr. Harper, you may not like us social conservatives, but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

By: William Harper

William Harper — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:05:40 +0000

Thanks for finding the link Mr. Anderson. If I exaggerated it was only slightly. The effect of classifying single parenting as an element of child abuse will be far reaching because it then becomes, by itself without any context, a prima facie element in a finding of criminal child abuse. A clever nutjob prosecutor could, and would, work it in in discussing legislative intent, etc. Regardless of statistics supporting it, it is absurd to have put that bill forward. Statistics also show people with incomes over 200K do well in life, let’s stigmatize making less than that as an element of child abuse.

Blaming the single parent who often is trying their hardest is not the way to start reform.

@Brian: By definition, a troll engages in discussion without being prepared to take it seriously. I, as I said and has been demonstrated, am prepared to cite all of my claims except the anecdotes. Don’t use lingo that your generation can’t or won’t understand flippantly. I know the Internets is such a hard technology and a scary place, but be brave.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:48:34 +0000

Tim: Thanks. To no one’s surprise, Mr. Harper’s claim indeed had absolutely nothing to do with reality.

I figure all the drive-by nutters will soon go away, and things can go somewhat back to normal.

By: Tim Anderson

Tim Anderson — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:14:57 +0000

The bill Mr Harper is referring to is 2011 Senate bill 507. Here’s the link. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb507

It does not do what Mr. Harper says, but it requires that the state “shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect” in its information and prevention of child abuse programs. Whether it is good legislation or not is one thing, but it is not over the top and there is evidence to support what the bill says. Contraception was not an issue created by Tea Party crowds or radicals, but by the Obama administration and its mandate, which it had to know would be problematic for the Roman Catholic Church and its bishops. Mr. Harper could have made his point without his own exaggerations, since there is plenty of craziness on both sides of political world in our country.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 02:22:16 +0000

Sigh. You’re clearly a concern troll, but against my better judgment, please provide a link of some sort for your silly contention about some WI bill or other.

It wasn’t the GOP that was talking about contraception all year. Not by a long shot. There’s really no point in engaging someone so divorced from reality. Sorry if you were expecting a point-by-point rebuttal.

By: Catherine White

Catherine White — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 02:01:21 +0000

You call yourself a post modern conservative. What a contradiction in terms. Can’t take you seriously…

By: William Harper

William Harper — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:16:03 +0000

@Brian: every single claim I made is verifiable. You can rest assured I have, with increasing dismay, documented these claims. I’m not some stupid young liberal, and I’m not a liberal bogeyman. Your condescension only serves to illustrate my point: the GOP has a generational demographic issue that’ll only get broader because the higher up I go in education and society the more unfashionable it is to align yourself with a party that routinely does things like the aforementioned bill in Wisconsin.