*Menu
Search
Submit
McCook Gazette
Editorial

Nebraska's in no position to lead on at least one issue

Monday, November 3, 2008

We had to chuckle at one candidate's contention that Washington was messed up -- no argument there -- and that Nebraska can show them the way.

Nebraska? The state which has replaced the Boogeyman in parental threats, i.e. "If you don't straighten up, I'm going to take you to Nebraska!"?

When it comes to safe haven laws, we're certainly in no position to provide leadership.

The Legislature left the definition of the word "child" to chance, opening the door to anyone having trouble with children as old as 18.

Gov. Dave Heineman has been forced to call an inconvenient and expensive special session beginning Nov. 14 to deal with the mess. The speaker of the Legislature, Mike Flood, says he expects lawmakers to deal with the broader issue of adolescents in crisis during the regular session beginning Jan. 7.

Hindsight is 20-20, but it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to know that there are plenty of parents and guardians out there who are ready to throw up their hands in frustration and turn unruly teens over to someone else.

But we're in for a big disappointment if we're looking to the Unicameral to solve problems that run to the core of family dynamics.

How many of the frustrations that parents and guardians feel stem from the work of social engineers who have interfered with traditional family roles and methods? How many children have been turned over to authorities because their parents were unable to use whatever tools they needed, including, yes, corporal punishment, to bring them into compliance?

Surely, consistent discipline including, perhaps, an occasional spanking, administered calmly at the proper age, is desirable to the crushing mental anguish of being abandoned to a system which, no matter how good it is, is inept and uncaring when compared to an involved and loving parent.

Comments
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

  • "Social engineers interfering with traditional family roles," is the same pious jagon intoned by defenders of wife beating not very long ago. Remember when loving husbands could reasonably chastise stubborn wives for burning the toast, serving the coffee cold or declining to perform their Christian conjugal duties?

    -- Posted by Jordan Riak on Mon, Nov 3, 2008, at 1:46 PM

  • "When it comes to safe haven laws, we're certainly in no position to provide leadership. At one point, Nebraska's safe haven law, which at last count has seen 27 children, mostly teenagers, abandoned to authorities, was so vaguely worded that anyone, not just a parent or legal guardian, could drop off a child at a hospital."

    Didn't our very own 'Boy's Town' (Now Boy's and Girl's Town) start something like our Safe Haven works? Young 'people' are able to find residence somewhere other than under a bridge, or in a box, until, if they are lucky, they are able to find some type of 'labor' to earn some semblance of a life-style? Don't forget how many of those children (below the age of 19) 'fell' through the 'cracks' of society, into degrading lifestyles (especially girls) that had a negative affect on their subsequent lives. Some even were, perhaps, blessed with early death, thus reducing their suffering for decades upon decades.

    Presuming that those seventeen and eighteen year old young people desired a hand-up, in their future, I ask: Why are we so reluctant to supply that hand-up. We should be grateful, as many Teen-aged youngsters would consider themselves above needing help, and would strike out on their own, into the world wroth with danger for the inexperienced.

    We owe our young people a chance at being able to pursue their 'happiness' also. I am not speaking about denigrating welfare, but ascension assistance, where positive self esteem allows excellence in abilities may be realized.

    For what it is further worth, we do not gain one thing, by criminalizing the parent, and placing them in prison. We then must financially help one, and financially pay for the condemnation of the other. Give it heartfelt thought, and prayer. Then, let your representative know your feelings, to be better 'Represented.'

    PS, To Jordan Riak, I am sorry, I cannot figure out,for sure, what you are trying to say, pro, or con. If possible, could you elaborate just a bit? I get the feeling you are anti-governmental-manipulation, and pro-pioneer-corporal, in mindset.

    In service to Messiah, His Shalom.

    DON'T FORGET TO VOTE, please.

    Arley Steinhour

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Nov 3, 2008, at 4:58 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: