Spanking kids is like a wheel

Call me old-fashioned but sometimes I just think that when something isn't broke you don't fix it. In this case I'm talking about spanking a child.

A recent article by Murray Straus, a professor of sociology and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire claims to have found a correlation between spanking children and lowering IQ's. According to a study done, the IQ's of children that get spanked are lower than kids that don't get spanked.

The biggest point of the article, that is barely touched upon, is the fact that the drop in IQ is 2.8 points. So in other words, nothing.

But if you read the article you would think the drop was 20 points. Which in itself is stupid. In fact I find it to be ridiculous polispeak to advance a liberal lifestyle agenda.

I agree that no child should be abused. But there is a massive differnce among the majority of parents in the world in regard to a spanking versus abuse. Unless of course you agree with the philosophy that a child should never be touched. The article comes close to saying a parent doesn't even have the ability to discipline a child without subcombing to abuse. Again I disagree.

First off, let's think for a moment. For millenia upon millenia children in every part of the world have been spanked. And mankind was able to advance from cavemen to astronauts. Obviously the 2.8 point in IQ didn't hurt us as a species. And I don't think that Beethoven, Einstein, Mozart, Bill Gates, Da Vinci, Plato, Stephen Hawking, and billions of others over the history of man suffered from being spanked a couple of times in their lives.

But what if we look at it from a differnt point of view. The children in the study lost 2.8 points of IQ. What did they gain? How many points of real life "street smarts" or common sense did they get? There seems to be no study or gauge for that, but I know it's far more important. And kids today seem to be severely lacking that far more than a couple of points of book smarts.

In fact, the study admits briefly that they don't know if any other factor might have caused the loss in IQ. Things like poverty, inadequate schools, societal factors, bad diets and on and on. So stating that a spanking is the root of evil is dumb.

Is spanking a child bad? The only answer is that it depends on the parent. A bad parent doesn't need to touch a child to screw up their lives. And a good parent can spank a deserving child without destroying their life; in fact they may benefit the child. Any other observation is just an attempt to persuade people into acting in a manner that someone else thinks is a good idea - basically an experiment.

Personally I hate it when I hear of studies like this. Because the findings are useless, but the goal seems to be the reshaping of society. It's studies like this that suddenly have Seasame Street being labled as too adult and detrimental for children. It's studies like this that say that television can raise your kids. It's studies like this that help create, I believe, kids that are so screwed up and lack enough knowledge to survive in the world thus becoming Columbine wakos.

Abusing kids is bad. It should not be tolerated. But spanking a child is something no one enjoyed and billions have benefited from over tens of thousands of years. And just like the wheel it's not broken, so we shouldn't try to fix it.

Danger for kids on the internet

I have a nephew that is pre-teen, and is on a social network. Recently I found that he had made changes to his page on that site. And I was amazed and upset by what I saw. And I wonder if other children have done the same thing. [By the way, all the things have been since changed and discussed with him by his father - so he understands why they were inappropriate.]

One of the first things that was on the site was the fact that he had pictures up that showed him and his friends holding up the moronic 'westside' and other similar gang signs. Beyond looking as bad as anyone who does this, it alarmed me to think that some fool was trying to recruit him and his friends into the dead-end life that is a gang member.

As it turned out he and his friends had no understanding of what the symbols meant. They had just seen them many times on television and thought it looked cool. Which is the idea I suppose. But he also did not realize that fools that believe in this kind of lifestyle also might hurt or kill him and his friends, because it was an insult to their gang or he represented an invasion to their 'territory', or simply because he had no connection to their abusive, illogical, warped group.

Another problem was the fact that his age was incorrect. This was done because he and his friends did not want to be seen as kids. For some reason they felt that being their actual age was a bad thing. That they were left out of some major positive the website provided only to adults.

They had no idea that this minor act helped to put them in danger of the pedophiles and other warped individuals that surf the net. They roam around enough as is, they need no help in finding children. And when my nephew mentioned that he would never be tricked into meeting with or otherwise contacting a stranger because he is too smart - I had to remind him that many adults are far smarter and have more experience than even the highly intelligent boy he is.

But the really big things that bothered me was the ease he had in finding and using graphics from a site that had an altered image of Microsoft's Word package.

The Word graphic is a box that has the picture of 5 famous rappers on it. Each in a state of rapper ghettofabulousness. Underneath were the words "Yo it's Word (n-word)". This was thought to be funny. Yet when asked there was no reason why it was funny, it just was.

So I then asked a simple question.

"Does it make sense that all these rappers and people want to be 'ghettofabulous' but everyone in the ghetto, especially the rappers, all want to get out? How good can the ghetto be, and living a life based on the 'ghetto', when no one wants to be there - even with money - except drug dealers."

His answer was simple as well. "It doesn't make sense at all."

I then asked the really big question.

"Do you know what the n-word means?"

He did not. He had no clue, though he has heard it in music and movies. He just thought it was another word.

That might sound great to some but that troubled me. Because the meaning of the word has not changed. If the CEO of Procter&Gamble used it in a interview he would be fired and sued if possible. The same would happen to the record executive that rappers work for (many of whom will not allow that word to be used in their own home). Because the meaning never changed, no matter the color of who says it.

So I told him about the fact that the n-word was used to describe slaves. That it was used to describe people just like him and I that were treated worse than dogs. And I told him about all the people that died so that he would never have to be called that word. Like uncounted numbers of slaves, Blacks that fought in the Civil War, WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam. Men like Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All those that died in the civil rights movement and so many others.

I told him the truth of the meaning of the word, and how it is defined in part as the single worst word in the english language. That to be called that has no comparison or equivalent come-back.

And then I told him how lucky he was to be alive today. Because he has never been called that. But I have been, as has my mother and father and so on. That he never has to fear being called that (I hope) because he was playing in school with a White kid, or because a White girl liked him. The world is mostly better than that, but not entirely.

And I told him the truth that the legal system once said that if a White person called a Black person that word, and the Black person hit them they would not go to jail. Because it was an incendiary term, a provoking term. And that's why the White owners of record companies can't say the word, but pay rappers to do it for them. And I asked him this

"How important do you think it is that the law was made about this word? How big a word do you think it is?"

He thought it very important. And he understood it in a very different and unfunny way.

I say all that to bring up this point. It's not enough to just watch what children are doing on the internet. We all, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents, need to be involved. We all need to explain why some things are wrong, and what the history of these things are. Because if we don't kids will use them, act on them, to their detriment.

Alec Baldwin part 2 - 4.25.2007.2

Continued from Alec Baldwin Part 1...

I’ll give you an example from my own life. When I was a young teen I decided to cut school with a friend on a Friday. I was a good student, a smart kid, and respectful of my elders. But when a friend suggested cutting school on a really nice weather day, I did it. I also got caught. When my father found out I was scolded in a similar manner to what Mr. Alec Baldwin did to his child. Perhaps not as harsh, but to many these days that think spanking a child is a vile act I’m sure it was no less intense. I was not ‘altered for life’ nor was anything else other than understanding that I failed to respect my mother and do what expected of me.

Being a smart kid, my logic told me on the following Monday, that I could cut school again. Who would ask after the threat of a beating given on Friday? Smart as I was, my logic was flawed. I was caught again. When my mother awakened me and my siblings she had only one thing to say, “Your father is in the living room.” I was justifiably fearful. After my father explained in detail the travails he had to endure to reach me and my siblings that Monday night, with a few expletives included, he hauled me into a room and proceeded to “straighten my ass out” on the concept of listening to my mother and respecting the words both of them had said to me. It was a vigorous lesson that involved few words. Again I was not scarred for life. I was reminded that respect of my parents and elders was an obligation that actions have consequences, and decisions may not always have the outcomes you expect or want. Pretty good life lessons I think. I also learned that if I’m going to do something I need to plan well. Sorry mom, but I did cut school again, in my later teens, but I learned to be smart enough about it to make sure I didn’t get caught. Another lesson of sorts, depending on how it is applied.

The point of this is simply that parents have outburst. Some are justified, some not. A child that has been cared for directly by their parents (or grand-parents) with discipline, involvement, and physical punishments when needed (and in moderation) turn out as often as not to be well adjusted adults. But as more parents that can afford to do so use therapists, drugs, and the latest books’ theory on child-raising the kids seem to be more screwed up than ever. No system is perfect as is no parent. But I have found more parents acting like my own in the Black and Hispanic communities than in others.

But in listening to Mr. Baldwin I am reminded to an extent of my parents. Not perfect, he was over the top, but similar. He was obviously frustrated because he loves his child. IF you’ve heard the full call you will know that. He knew he was wrong and apologized long before anyone else in the world heard word one. He has never been accused of any abuse to his child ever.

What has been horribly abusive is that a private conversation was released to the world. His daughter has been embarrassed in front of her peers and the world. Somehow, someone let this private call get out to the public. IF it was Mrs. Kim Bassinger, that was an abusive act.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Alec Baldwin voicemail - 4.25.2007.1

Well I mentioned that I would discuss this so hear it is. Most should have heard about Mr. Alec Baldwin’s taped message to his daughter. I have heard a great deal about the reactions various talking heads have had about the tape, but of the ones I’ve heard talking about this I noticed not one was African American and I presume that more than a few believe in the ‘time-out’ and nanny philosophies in raising children. I will admit I have no direct evidence for my beliefs but it is based on my observations of their comments in various items dealing with children, and I may well be wrong.

There is a reason I directly mention the apparent lack of commentators that are African American (on the news programs I have seen). Of the black families I am aware of, spoken to, and was raised in this is not such a big deal. Yes Mr. Baldwin went overboard. He went too far, and significantly less reported was the fact that he recognized this and apologized to his daughter. That apology was before this voice mail was released by ‘someone’ to the public.

But I don’t think it was that big a deal. I have no doubt that similar outbursts have occurred in virtually every family in the world since probably the dawn of time. Many may not have been as harsh, and probably an equal number were worse. Unlike the pundits and talking heads I don’t see this as a “traumatic life altering event.” That is until the entire world was given access to this private matter. Normally I don’t comment on private matters of entertainers and celebrities but this one I will.

Every Black family has had a moment like this, to my knowledge. It happens. It doesn’t ruin the child nor is it abuse. The term abuse is so overused these days as to minimize what is the real damage actual abuse can cause. Perhaps if there were fewer parents that let television raise their kids, fewer time-outs, and fewer nannies raising children there would be fewer Virginia Tech and Columbine events. Being a parent isn’t about being the best friend of your child first, or following some rulebook that was created in the last 30 years, or never looking in your kids room. In the multiple millenniums of parents raising children, it’s only been the last maybe 40 years where books were necessary. Interesting how in that same timeframe the incidence of child violence (like Columbine, and child on child violence in all its forms) has grown; becoming a recurring tragedy now as opposed to a rare atrocity previously.

That is except in poor, non-white, inner city areas. There are no fewer guns today than in the last century probably. Gangs are as prevalent as ever. Drugs are prolific. Yet the overwhelming predominance of mass murderers, serial killers and other vile fiends are not found in inner cities. Shouldn’t someone ask why?

I think it’s because African American, Latino/Hispanic, and other minority families believe in the child having fear and respect for their parents, friendship is reserved for after the child being a grown adult. Notice that fear is the first part of the combination. That does not mean I condone terrorizing, or abusing a child. It does mean that a rod should not be spared, and over the top reactions to minor actions should cease.

Continued in part 2...