Two Disgusting Cases Of Child Abuse: Which One Is Worse?

One Committed By A Cult, Or The Other By
The Governor Of South Carolina?

Today, I noted two tragic acts of child abuse. In a sense, they were both actions of people who did not know their children, or at least not how innocent children can be. Of the two, it is the second which is nonsensical. Governors should know better.

Of the Southern governors who have chosen not to accept Stimulus funds (all or in part), has any one governor tried to poll his constituency about what THEY want (or don't want)? Governors, after all, are not elected to perform as parents of their constituents. And since when do governors refuse money marked for education because they think it "harmful" in the long run?

How many states can afford to refuse money for education? Will their refusals result in better state education infrastructure? Will children learn more as a result? Will grateful children send their governors hand-written letters of thanks (forwarded, of course, by their almost non-existent teachers)?

O.K. Enough of that. Let's look at the two:

THIS IS CHILD ABUSE:

BALTIMORE (AP) — A former religious cult member pleaded guilty Monday to starving her 1-year-old son to death after making an unusual deal with prosecutors: If the child is resurrected, her plea will be withdrawn. Ria Ramkissoon, 22, also agreed to testify against four other members of the now-defunct religious group known as 1 Mind Ministries. All four are charged with first-degree murder in the death of Javon Thompson.

According to a statement of facts, the cult members stopped feeding the boy when he refused to say "Amen" after a meal. After Javon died, Ramkissoon sat next to his decomposing body and prayed for his resurrection.

AND THIS IS CHILD ABUSE:

(from ThinkProgress.com)

As Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) continues to wage an ideological war against $700 million of sorely-needed stimulus funds for his state, he has become more and more desperate to stave off his critics. Tonight on Glenn Beck’s Fox show, Sanford claimed that accepting the funds — 80 percent of which would fund education in his state — would be akin to “fiscal child abuse”

YES, "FISCAL CHILD ABUSE."

"...since those costs will be borne by the next generation, in fact it is sort of fiscal child abuse to do what we’re doing. "

Sanford counts on the fact that the "next generation" can't vote yet. He's in training for 2012, so today's kids don't really matter until they start paying taxes or (more importantly) start investing. It's a pity that today's South Carolina adults are too poor to relocate to a state that cares about their children's PRESENT education. Oh, and about 80% of those kids are African American. Sanford will scream that race is not a factor in "his" decision.

What does South Carolina really have to lose refusing the money? According to State Representative Dan Cooper (R), the state would lose up to 4,000 teachers and 700 prison guards.

Poor education is one of the factors leading to poverty and crime. More crime, but fewer prison guards. Hmmm. South Carolina is a beautiful place, but with poverty and crime escalating at the speed of light, would YOU want to live there? Yes, there are some very, very rich enclaves in SC, but they're considering moats stocked with crocodiles.

Crocodiles cost too much. They'll be bankrupt within a year. THEN, they'll be asking for stimulus money.

Just a thought.