Jessica Mondillo’s Blog


Sarah Palin is John McCain’s Vice President

29 August 2008

McCain announced that Alaskan governor Sarah Palin will be his vice president.  This may have come as a shock to many, especially since Palin was not on the short list of people McCain was considering for VP.  The question is was this a good choice?

Yesterday, I heard about a poll that pick former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as the person on McCain’s “short list” that would have most benefited him.  Romney would have helped McCain gain at least 1 out of every 5 voters (all over the country as well as across party lines) that were not already committed to McCain.  In addition Romney would have helped McCain almost definitely secure Michigan and many of the Midwestern states.  Romney would also be able to help McCain fill in gaps on economic issues, which McCain admits a lack of expertise.  So why not pick Romney?

McCain obviously felt that Palin would be more beneficial and pull in more voters.  After listening to her speech, she does have many accomplishments including fighting government corruption, having an average family life, and crossing party lines.  Despite these accomplishments, Palin was relatively unheard of before today and will not draw many people in on name recognition.

In her speech Palin acknowledged New York Senator Hillary Clinton and the cracks she made in the “glass ceiling.”  She also reminded people that this week is the anniversary of women receiving the right to vote.  Palin then commented that we can “finish breaking the glass ceiling.”  This makes it seem like Palin was not selected for her credentials (or at least not entirely), but instead because she is a woman who may be able to attract female voters from both parties, especially former Hillary supporters.

Obviously no one will know how this affects McCain in the election, but I truly do NOT believe that Palin was selected merely on credentials.  Beyond having an impressive story and her ability to reach across party lines to work against government problems, I feel that by ignoring certain issues in her speech Palin may lack expertise on issues such as the economy.  I guess the next 2 months and the RNC will tell.


Massachusetts No Spanking Law

November 29, 2007 

Massachusetts legislation is trying to pass a law that stop parents from being allowed to spank their children.

I think this is absolutely appalling.  I’m 18 and I’ll admit I was spanked as a child and I don’t think it did any harm to me.  Actually, overall I’d say I turned out to be a perfectly normal human being who is capable of surviving in the world.

In the pasts parents used to be able to whip their children and no one ever gave this a second thought, and now we are second guessing spanking?

All children are different.  Some follow the rules and should be rewarded.  Others don’t and they have to be punished.  Although you can use time out, it is both much harder to enforce and it is not nearly as immediate.  Children need to be able to associate misbehavior with punishment, because then they won’t misbehave.  It worked with me.  After age 5 or 6, I very rarely was spanked because I knew the rules and I knew if I was told not to do something and I did it there were consequences.

Now if you said this was a no spanking rule for foster or adopted children from an abusive household.  I could understand that, it may create additional trama to what a child has been through.

What about the manipulative child?  We all know that parents who are spanking their children obviously have a child who broke some type of rule.  Children who are not disciplined can manipulate their parents.  I’ve seen that even within my own extended family.  So what about the children who will go report a parent just to get back at them for not allowing them to watch TV.  Then it’s a battle of who says what because spankings don’t normally leave physical evidence.

Spanking shouldn’t be covered by a blanket rule.  If parents don’t believe in spanking, that is their right to not spank their child.  If parents want to spank their child for misbehavior that is their choice.  The government shouldn’t be interfering with the personal lives and discipline styles of a family.

An Update (November 30, 2007):

This is from an article on parentdish.com:

With corporal punishment defined as “the willful infliction of physical pain or injurious or humiliating treatment,”  legislator Jay Kaufman says, “We need to have a serious public conversation, not about spanking – that’s not what this is about – but where people cross the line and abuse their children.”

First of all this is scary for a LOT of reasons.  Why are we going to converse about the law after it is passed?  The government is much less likely to get rid of it once it is passed.  Thats why Massachusetts has some laws that are so outdated (back from the original blue book from the 1600s-1700s) that they get people out of violent crimes because by law they have that right.

Kaufman says this isn’t about spanking.  Yes it is.  Spanking it the willing inflicting of physical pain.  A small amount but still physical pain.  Now lets finish interpreting these words.  “Or humiliating” is a VERY scary phrase.  What is humiliating and who determines it is humiliating?  While humiliating, according to Webster.com, means: extremely destructive to ones self-respect or dignity.  You can say that a time out is destructive to ones self esteem because a child has to sit in a corner and not move while everyone else has fun and the child is stuck all by their-self.  I mean after all that may make other children look down upon the punished child because they did something WRONG.

On that note I’d have to say we can’t put anybody in jail because it might hurt their self esteem and dignity because they are being punished for committing a crime.  If you see something wrong with that sentence, you may want to consider seeing that something is equally as wrong with this bill.

And “about where people cross the line and abuse children” is what you want to talk about.  Fine let’s talk.  In 1999 Massachusetts highest court ruled that spanking was okay as long as it didn’t cause serious bodily harm.  This makes sense because spankings shouldn’t cause serious bodily harm, at most it might bruise but even that, in my opinion, is VERY extreme.  I believe we already have laws in place to protect both children, spouses, and even significant others from being abused by another person whether it be a parent, a caregiver, or a significant other.

Don’t be fooled this law isn’t about stopping child abuse.  It’s about taking away parent’s rights.  It’s about taking away the freedom to chose.  Read “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.”  Then put it in political terms.  If you give away one right now, they’ll take another, and another.  Pretty soon we won’t have any rights.


Ron Paul ’08:The people’s choice.

08 November 2007

According to CNN Political Ticker, not only has Ron Paul move up in the standings to second place, he is winning debates.  When you look at his policies it is not surprising why.

Ron Paul is what people would consider an ideological candidate.  He wants quick withdrawal from Iraq that would take 2 to 3 months as opposed to figures by the Democrats that said it would take until 2013 (6 YEARS).  He wants to stabilize the economy and reduce government over spending.

It is expected that Ron Paul will come in a respectable place in the primaries if nothing changes.  A slip up by Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney could potential raise Paul’s standings.

Personally I hope they do.  Change for America is what he is offering and that’s why he is getting so much support.  People are unhappy with politics as usual.  Ron Paul is getting his money from the people not from companies.

Ron Paul is a huge movement not because he is targeting people with TV ads (or at least not yet) but because he has supporters making their own signs and putting them up in businesses, on street corner, at rallies and on overpasses.  This is how politics should be, focused on the people.  Politics isn’t for the betterment of companies, hitting you through mass communication but it should be personal and that’s what Ron Paul’s campaign is.  Personal.

Ron Paul has big campaign goals and maybe he won’t be able to achieve all of them.  But success in just half his goals would revolutionize America. 

For the full CNN article go to: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/07/flush-with-cash-ron-paul-now-eyeing-new-hampshire/#more-2958