Father Spanks 20-Year Old Daughter Over A Phone Bill

When is a child too old to spank? Or is corporal punishment less about age, and more about the infraction?

Recently a prominent lawyer in Portland, Maine was arrested and charged with “spanking” his 20-year old daughter. And what was the transgression that enraged the father? Try a $5000 phone bill:

Corporal Punishment for a $5,000 phone bill

A parent should be permitted to determine the proper punishment for their child, as long as it is within reason. But this “child” is 20-years old! She is 20-years old, living in his house, and apparently he is still paying her cell-phone bill. Gee, no red-flags there!

I am glad the charges were dropped. Now I only hope the father has the fortitude to let his daughter “find her place in the world.” Translation: Boot her butt out the door, find a job, and see how hard a person has to work to pay for a $5000 phone bill. Spoiled Brat!

Dogs and Cats for McCain

A recent Yahoo-AP poll found that pet owners favor McCain to Obama 42% to 37%:

AP: Pets Owners prefer McCain

The fact that Obama does not own a pet, a situation he has promised to rectify once he is elected, might have swayed the survey. The American Kennel Club (AKC) went so far as to ask the American public what type of dog should Obama select (if elected):

AKC: No Mutts for Obama

But would Obama really pick a full-bred dog? Wouldn’t selecting a poodle or yorkie further perpetuate his elitist persona? And could Obama really pull off being a Lab owner? Please!

Obama’s advisors would have to insist that he select a good old American Mutt. Imagine the photo-op, Obama entering an animal shelter, a daughter to each side, walking up to a cage and selecting a dog in need. Hell, I might consider voting for him if I saw that!

A mutt would truly represent the message of hope and unity Obama is striving for. And besides, if the dog doesn’t work out, there is always the “Socks Solution (Former Clinton First Cat Socks).”

Men: Nothing More Than Sperm Donors

The assault on fatherhood continues, this time in the UK. Legislators in England decided to pass a law scraping a previous addendum to England's IVF laws which stated a “father and mother” were required before an IVF procedure is performed:

England: Fathers No Longer Required

This law is a sad statement as to the importance a father plays in the emotional development in a child’s life. Men are considered insignificant in the well-being of the child, while a mother is revered as the only parent a child would ever need.

The passing of this law does nothing more than allow women to think of only themselves and their emotional and biological needs. As the story pointed out, there was much debate back and forth as to the “different kinds” of families that could exist. But one telling exchange perked my interest:

“Labour ex-minister George Howarth asked if he accepted that there were bad fathers who can "have a bad influence in some circumstances" - to which Mr Duncan Smith said he did.”

To direct that question straight towards fathers is a clear example of the bias many people have against men. Could that same question not also be true for bad mothers? The reality is that a child is far more likely to be killed by their mother during the first weeks of their life than their father. A child is also more likely to be abused and murder in a “mother-only” household.

I am not trying to say that a father is better than a mother, or a mother is better than a father; but study after study has shown that the best thing for a child is a home that features a mother and a father. To artificially eliminate the need for a father is not only harmful to the child, but to society on a whole.