You can watch it here.
Book review video on "You Still Don't Understand"
Bernard Chapin has a great video on Richard Driscolls's book, You Still Don't Understand:Typical Differences between Men and Women.
You can watch it here.
You can watch it here.
It's about time...
It seems that a men's advocacy group has been started at the University of Chicago:
Any group for men or run by men is going to be said to be misogynistic--kind of like anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. It's just part of a trend to shut anyone down who disagrees with the politically correct agenda and doesn't willingly submit to the socialist/radical feminist agenda. Luckily, young men like Steve Saltarelli who is president of the group is not listening. The tide is turning.
A group of University of Chicago students think it's time the campus focused more on its men.
A third-year student from Lake Bluff has formed Men in Power, a student organization that promises to help men get ahead professionally. But the group's emergence has been controversial, with some critics charging that its premise is misogynistic.
Others say it's about time men are championed, noting that recent job losses hit men harder and that women earn far more bachelor's and master's degrees than do men.
"It's an enormous disparity now," said Warren Farrell, author of "The Myth of Male Power"and former board member of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. He noted, among other things, an imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interests of women and girls.
Any group for men or run by men is going to be said to be misogynistic--kind of like anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. It's just part of a trend to shut anyone down who disagrees with the politically correct agenda and doesn't willingly submit to the socialist/radical feminist agenda. Luckily, young men like Steve Saltarelli who is president of the group is not listening. The tide is turning.
IT guys and marriage
Psychoanalyst Stuart Schneiderman sent me a link to an article he was interviewed for on IT (mostly) guys and marriage. The title of the piece, "IT People Are From Mars: Why Your Marriages Are From Hell or Headed There" is (I suppose) a take-off on John Gray's book, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus.
Apparently, IT people are from another world when it comes to communicating with their spouses.
Eleven men and one woman were asked about what they wished their spouse knew about their job. This is what the men said:
The men in the article are seen as the "bad guys," that is, they are seen as uncommunicative and insensitive to their wives--and blamed for their shortcomings. The summary of the piece makes this clear: "your answers spoke more about your communication mistakes at home than they did about your spouse's shortcomings. Read on for advice on how to fix this before a nasty crash."
Perhaps these IT men are a bit uncommunicative or perhaps they do have stressful jobs. But can you imagine if the same author interviewed women who were raising five kids and having a stressful time of it? Say the husband was calling home for some spousal care on the phone in the middle of three of the kids having a temper tantrum. Do you think anyone would be sympathetic to his plight and blame the wife for her communication mistakes? I rather doubt it.
Apparently, IT people are from another world when it comes to communicating with their spouses. Eleven men and one woman were asked about what they wished their spouse knew about their job. This is what the men said:
Most of the 11 other respondents' answers to my question expressed some frustration with their jobs or with their marriages, or both. (The one woman who responded to my question wrote about the guilt-trips her kids lay on her for having to work long hours.) Their responses boiled down to the following five themes:
1. I don't want to discuss the details of my workday when I get home.
2. Don't call me at work unless it's an emergency.
3. If I don't return your phone call, it's not because I'm mad at you/don't love you. It's because I'm busy.
4. IT management is not a 9-to-5 job. It's complicated, demanding and stressful.
5. I'm not a tech support person, and I can't fix all of the family's home technology problems, especially when I'm at work. I spend my time on strategic issues and networking with other C-level executives.
The men in the article are seen as the "bad guys," that is, they are seen as uncommunicative and insensitive to their wives--and blamed for their shortcomings. The summary of the piece makes this clear: "your answers spoke more about your communication mistakes at home than they did about your spouse's shortcomings. Read on for advice on how to fix this before a nasty crash."
Perhaps these IT men are a bit uncommunicative or perhaps they do have stressful jobs. But can you imagine if the same author interviewed women who were raising five kids and having a stressful time of it? Say the husband was calling home for some spousal care on the phone in the middle of three of the kids having a temper tantrum. Do you think anyone would be sympathetic to his plight and blame the wife for her communication mistakes? I rather doubt it.
Grand rounds is up
Grand Rounds is up. Be sure and check out the post on the debate about how to treat ADHD at the Child Psych blog. It has some useful information.
Does having daughters really make fathers more left wing?
That's what a study in the Daily Mail says (via HotAir):
Some of the commenters to this article aren't buying it:
Good for them.
In an unpublished article to be submitted to an economics journal, the researchers wrote: �This paper provides evidence that daughters make people more Left-wing, while having sons, by contrast, makes them more Right-wing.�
Professor Oswald said: �As men acquire female children, those men gradually shift their political stance and become more sympathetic to the �female� desire for a larger amount for the public good.
Some of the commenters to this article aren't buying it:
What total drivel!
I have two daughters and never could they persuade me to follow the left wing trash of the Labour party.
But then; I'm just to the right of Genghis Khan.
What a load of rubbish!
Who comes up with this nonsense?
Oh yes it's Labour's think tank!
No wonder the country is in la la land.
My mother raised me "left wing", and I came to my senses and abandoned it when I became a wife and mother with a mortgage. And I don't get my political views from nitwits like "brangelina".
Good for them.
Older workers 'going Galt' by retiring early?
It seems that many older workers are retiring early rather than staying on the job (thanks br549):
Though the article points out that early retirement has its drawbacks (naturally, the concern is for women--who may have to learn to live on less if hubby gets lower benefits) my guess is that anyone close to early retirement figures it's now or never, given the possibility that Social Security benefits will be cut down or dry up in the near future.
Also, instead of paying income tax from their job, these older workers will now be sucking off the government tit (though to be fair, many put in more money than they will ever get back). It's even better than going Galt, it's becoming a moocher instead of a producer. Now that producers are punished and moochers rewarded, I can see the appeal.
Reporting from Washington-- Instead of seeing older workers staying on the job longer as the economy has worsened, the Social Security system is reporting a major surge in early retirement claims that could have implications for the financial security of millions of baby boomers.
Since the current federal fiscal year began Oct. 1, claims have been running 25% ahead of last year, compared with the 15% increase that had been projected as the post-World War II generation reaches eligibility for early retirement, according to Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration....
The ramifications of the trend are profound for the new retirees, their families, the government and other social institutions that may be called upon to help support them.
Though the article points out that early retirement has its drawbacks (naturally, the concern is for women--who may have to learn to live on less if hubby gets lower benefits) my guess is that anyone close to early retirement figures it's now or never, given the possibility that Social Security benefits will be cut down or dry up in the near future.
Also, instead of paying income tax from their job, these older workers will now be sucking off the government tit (though to be fair, many put in more money than they will ever get back). It's even better than going Galt, it's becoming a moocher instead of a producer. Now that producers are punished and moochers rewarded, I can see the appeal.
Do test-prep courses improve SAT scores?
Barely--according to this WSJ article:
I remember taking one of these courses prior to taking the ACT and it really seemed to improve my score. The class really taught me how to take a multiple choice test and understand how to give answers that the test makers wanted, rather than what I thought the right answer should be. It went against my intuition, but seemed to work. However, when I took the GRE prior to my PhD, I used a GRE prep book
and skipped the class. I think that was a mistake. So, for some people, the classes may really work and for others, not so much.
Anyone else out there take one of these classes or have kids or grand kids who did and find them useful or not?
Families can spend thousands of dollars on coaching to help college-bound students boost their SAT scores. But a new report finds that these test-preparation courses aren't as beneficial as consumers are led to believe.
The report, to be released Wednesday by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, criticizes common test-prep-industry marketing practices, including promises of big score gains with no hard data to back up such claims. The report also finds fault with the frequent use of mock SAT tests because they can be devised to inflate score gains when students take the actual SAT. The association represents 11,000 college admissions officers, high-school guidance counselors and private advisors.
I remember taking one of these courses prior to taking the ACT and it really seemed to improve my score. The class really taught me how to take a multiple choice test and understand how to give answers that the test makers wanted, rather than what I thought the right answer should be. It went against my intuition, but seemed to work. However, when I took the GRE prior to my PhD, I used a GRE prep book
and skipped the class. I think that was a mistake. So, for some people, the classes may really work and for others, not so much. Anyone else out there take one of these classes or have kids or grand kids who did and find them useful or not?
"...is it always wrong to make decisions based on fear?"
David Harsanyi: Fear: Our national pastime:
Read the rest.
In a speech defending his detainee plan this week, President Barack Obama brandished his now-famous Spock-like wisdom by claiming that "Our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight" after 9/11.
Whether you agree with the president's account of the nation's post- 9/11 policy, you might still ask yourself two questions:
First off, is it always wrong to make decisions based on fear?
Having been in New York on 9/11, I would contend that fear was not only a logical reaction to what was happening but also an unavoidable one. As John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine recently noted, "Fear was an entirely responsible response to September 11. Indeed, it was, in some ways, the only responsible response."
....Fear, as philosopher Hannah Arendt observed, "is an emotion indispensable for survival."
Read the rest.
"There has to be a relationship between the police and the community that has to be one of faith in each"
I was emailed some interesting articles on forensic work from the Miller-McCune.com site. One that caught my eye was on why fewer murder cases get solved these days:
Maybe the fact that the police have no duty to protect any individual person has something to do with people not trusting law enforcement to protect them, do ya think? Why should citizens have faith in police who have no such duty?
Ask homicide detectives what the No. 1 roadblock to their investigations is, and, by far, the leading response is "witness cooperation." That's one reason the average homicide clearance rate � cases solved by police departments compared with the number of known homicides � which approached 90 percent in 1960 is now a third less, 61 percent......
...Rather than a police tendency to devalue victims from minority communities, hence ignoring or failing to pursue homicide investigations in these areas, it is actually "police devaluation" that is at the root of the problem.
"A victim or a person who knows them might distrust the police," Jarvis says, "but you also have victims who might not want to go to the police. They don't believe the police are the tool or the mechanism for resolving that behavior."
Maybe the fact that the police have no duty to protect any individual person has something to do with people not trusting law enforcement to protect them, do ya think? Why should citizens have faith in police who have no such duty?
"...they occupy roughly the same status in their households as the help."
WSJ: From Patriach to Patsy: A father of three young children discovers the humiliations of being a modern dad (thanks to reader Dave):
In the most affluent parts of the Western world, a historic transference of power has taken place that is greater than anything achieved by the trade-union movement, the women's movement or the civil-rights movement -- and it hasn't even been extended the courtesy of being called a movement. Fathers, who enjoyed absolute authority within the household for several millennia, now find themselves at the beck and call of their wives and children. Indeed, most of my male friends are not fathers in any traditional sense at all; they occupy roughly the same status in their households as the help. They don't guide their children through the moral quandaries of life -- they guide them to their extracurricular activities from behind the wheel of a Dodge minivan....
Home Game: An Accidental Guide to Fatherhood,Mr. Lewis's account of becoming a father to his three children, begins promisingly. "At some point in the last few decades, the American male sat down at the negotiating table with the American female and -- let us be frank -- got fleeced," he writes.
The poor sucker agreed to take on responsibility for all sorts of menial tasks -- tasks that his own father was barely aware of -- and received nothing in return. If he was hoping for some gratitude, he was mistaken. According to Mr. Lewis: "Women may smile at a man pushing a baby stroller, but it is with the gentle condescension of a high officer of an army toward a village that surrendered without a fight."
The end of free speech?
Freelance writer and film critic Christian Toto has a thought-provoking review up of Brad O'Leary's new book, Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech.
18 arrested at Notre Dame
Eighteen people were arrested at Notre Dame yesterday (via Newsalert):
Some news reports say that these groups were trespassing, but I wonder if we will see an uptick in arrests of those people who protest Obama's policies?
Eighteen people- including former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes- were arrested on Friday outside the school's front gates. About 40 people participated in the prayer and listened to Keyes- who led the group- speak before the smaller number walked onto campus. There, they were stopped by security officers.
Some news reports say that these groups were trespassing, but I wonder if we will see an uptick in arrests of those people who protest Obama's policies?
PJTV: Deadbeat Dads, the recession and divorced men
I interview men's rights activist Glenn Sacks about Deadbeat Dads, his Lifetime TV Campaign, how the recession is hitting men and why non-custodial parents are the only ones whose debts will put them in jail. And do women use the courts as their "private army of vengeance?" Don't miss this important conversation.
You can watch here. Or just click on the picture.
"What I've learned is that the way that men are wired to relate is totally legitimate."
John Hawkins interviews relationship expert Shaunti Feldhahn, author of For Men Only: A Straightforward Guide to the Inner Lives of Women
and For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men.
A highlight:
While I don't think pronouncing that you are so Godlike that you are bestowing men with legitimacy for their way of thinking, it seems that Shaunti Feldhahn has a few decent things to say.
and For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men. A highlight:Now let me reverse that. Same question: what do you think the biggest misperception that many women have about men and dating is?
I think honestly there is a dangerous assumption that a lot of women have -- and we would never usually say it out loud, but it's in there. It's this idea that we women think we're really the ones who are good at relationships. We women kind of think we're really the ones with the interpersonal skills. We honestly think when we see something that we don't understand or something that makes us upset,"He just has to learn to relate better." What I've learned is that the way that men are wired to relate is totally legitimate. It's just totally different. We don't have to make them relate the way we do.
While I don't think pronouncing that you are so Godlike that you are bestowing men with legitimacy for their way of thinking, it seems that Shaunti Feldhahn has a few decent things to say.
Since when did the decision to express a political opinion become an �age-appropriate risk�?
Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog had a couple of good questions after reading an article in Family Circle magazine recently:
I'll venture a guess and say the doctor in the article means that voicing a political opinion can be risky in that others may disagree with you and that is often difficult for a teenager who does not have a fully formed sense of self (I think some do, however). Teens probably have less of a sense of self these days as they are told what to do and think so often and have few critical thinking skills.
Or perhaps people are so politicized these days that a political opinion is risky and does have bad consequences. For example, if a teen yelled, "I hate Bush" loudly in a classroom, my guess is that little would happen. Maybe Johnny would be told to "calm down." If conversely, however, he yelled, "I hate Obama," all hell would break loose. Johnny would be hauled off for counseling, maybe more drastic action would be taken. Maybe this is the risk the doctor in the article was talking about?
I was more than a little surprised to see this quote I stumbled upon yesterday in a Family Circle Magazine (March 2009; free registration might be required) from a �Steve Schlozman, MD, a Harvard Medical School assistant professor of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital�:
Adolescents need to know you trust them to make good decisions,� he says. �Your faith builds their confidence to take age-appropriate risks � ask someone out on a date, audition for the play, offer a political opinion.�
Huh?
The not-so-good Dr. Schlozman immediately follows with this absurd, dangerous, family-destructive statement which makes his credibility very, very suspect:
Prying can also spur kids to act out. �Kids need to have a separate life their parents don�t know all about,� adds Dr. Schlozman.
Really? Here�s a ditzy doc who says in essence that kids need to learn to be little sneaks to grow up well-adjusted. I hope that�s not typical family magazine advice, but I fear that it is.
Back on point: Since when did the decision to express a political opinion, whether inside a classroom or not, become an �age-appropriate risk�? And what are the potentially bad consequences of taking such a risk?
I'll venture a guess and say the doctor in the article means that voicing a political opinion can be risky in that others may disagree with you and that is often difficult for a teenager who does not have a fully formed sense of self (I think some do, however). Teens probably have less of a sense of self these days as they are told what to do and think so often and have few critical thinking skills.
Or perhaps people are so politicized these days that a political opinion is risky and does have bad consequences. For example, if a teen yelled, "I hate Bush" loudly in a classroom, my guess is that little would happen. Maybe Johnny would be told to "calm down." If conversely, however, he yelled, "I hate Obama," all hell would break loose. Johnny would be hauled off for counseling, maybe more drastic action would be taken. Maybe this is the risk the doctor in the article was talking about?
From Transparency to Opacity in Health-care
Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health-Care:
Hope and change!
Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system....
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.
Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, [my emphasis] Senate aides said.
Hope and change!
Reader links on male injustice
Many of you have been sending links this week to stories of male injustice, or stories of interest. I thought I would share a few with other readers. First, there is this story (thanks to the reader who sent it) on sexting where the male teen in the case is put under house arrest and the female must (gasp!) do a research paper:
Can anyone explain to me why the male got a stiffer sentence?
Next up is a sexist story sent in by another reader about male birth control called, "Why I'll NEVER trust a man who says he's had the contraceptive jab... and neither should any girl." What I find ironic is when the author says:
My question is, why is it that if a woman tells a man she is on the pill and she gets pregnant because she lies about it, people say the man should have known better and blame him--and these blamers are often women. I hardly think anyone will blame a woman if she ends up pregnant from a man who lies. Men have been dealing with this situation for years, glad to know the shoe is on the other foot now. And don't even get me started on the "every man is a sexual predator."
I do want to add that if I was male, I would protect myself if I did not want children by getting this contraceptive so I would be at less risk of getting a woman pregnant. This, along with DNA testing, could provide more sexual freedom for men since they have no rights when it comes to pregnancy.
Finally, another reader sends in a sad story about a man who, it seems, killed his wife in an accident with a chain saw. The reader appropriately makes the point, "Seems like a tragic accident, but I'll be trying to find updates to see if the husband gets punished more harshly than Mary Winkler."
Reader, please keep us informed. And if other readers have thoughts on these issues, share them below.
Two Mason teens who were charged earlier this year with "sexting" nude photos on their cell phones were sentenced today in Warren County Juvenile Court.
The teens admitted to charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, misdemeanors of the first degree, according to an announcement from the Warren County Prosecutor's Office.
Juvenile Court Judge Mike Powell sentenced each teen to 100 hours of community service and counseling. The male teen was sentenced to house arrest for 30 days while the female will be required to submit a research paper to the court relating to the dangers of �sexting.�
The teens will be required to turn over their cell phones to a probation officer for 30 days. The sentence also allows for the offenses to be dismissed from their records if they fully complete the terms of the sentence.
�This is a just and adequate punishment,� Warren County Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel said. �It sends a message to the teens of Warren County that this is not a joke, this is a serious issue that can have long lasting consequences.
Can anyone explain to me why the male got a stiffer sentence?
Next up is a sexist story sent in by another reader about male birth control called, "Why I'll NEVER trust a man who says he's had the contraceptive jab... and neither should any girl." What I find ironic is when the author says:
Without being too indelicate, there's also the question of proof. How on earth can a woman know that the man really has had the injection?
Imagine the scenario: boy meets girl, and, like so many young women now, she doesn't know the man particularly well.
As they strip and get into bed, she asks him if he has 'brought anything'. He says: 'Don't worry, I've had the jab.'
What woman in her right mind would believe that? At least you can see a condom with your own eyes. Or would they issue sperm-free certificates for men to carry around with their driving licences to prove they're up to date with their jabs?
But most important of all, you can't buck human nature. Deep inside every man who still has his own hair and teeth, and even those who don't, is a sexual predator who will have sex anywhere, anytime, if he can.
My question is, why is it that if a woman tells a man she is on the pill and she gets pregnant because she lies about it, people say the man should have known better and blame him--and these blamers are often women. I hardly think anyone will blame a woman if she ends up pregnant from a man who lies. Men have been dealing with this situation for years, glad to know the shoe is on the other foot now. And don't even get me started on the "every man is a sexual predator."
I do want to add that if I was male, I would protect myself if I did not want children by getting this contraceptive so I would be at less risk of getting a woman pregnant. This, along with DNA testing, could provide more sexual freedom for men since they have no rights when it comes to pregnancy.
Finally, another reader sends in a sad story about a man who, it seems, killed his wife in an accident with a chain saw. The reader appropriately makes the point, "Seems like a tragic accident, but I'll be trying to find updates to see if the husband gets punished more harshly than Mary Winkler."
Reader, please keep us informed. And if other readers have thoughts on these issues, share them below.
Starve the Beast
The Galt Effect on Uncle Sam:
There are a thousand reasons why Federal receipts are down, but the one that is most interesting is the attitude towards government effect. Our attitude about how our government is doing can be good or bad, depending on how we side on the issues. If we feel that government is doing a good job, we�re more likely to prepare our tax returns and calculate our withholding based on an optimistic outcome (taking fewer risks). The reverse is also true: when we believe that the government is doing a bad job or mishandling our tax dollars, we will take riskier deductions on our tax return, as well as calculate our withholding in such a way as to prepare for a bad financial year (to hold back as much cash as possible), or with the intent to starve/punish the beast.
Has your marriage been affected by the recession?
PJTV is looking for those of you out there whose marriage has been affected by the recession. Are you working more or less during the recession and is this putting a strain on your marriage? Is your wife picking up more of the load and resentful? Or is your husband unhappy about the stress in the family budget? Does this article reflect your experience or is it something different? Let us know!
Email PJTV at recessionmarriage@pjtv.com
Email PJTV at recessionmarriage@pjtv.com
The Road to Serfdom
We are on it. I saw on Instapundit that today is F.A. Hayek's birthday. I am in the middle of reading his book, The Road to Serfdom 
and I wish so very much I had read this earlier in life. I took several economics classes in college but didn't read this book, I think they told us to read Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto. 
Pity.
and I wish so very much I had read this earlier in life. I took several economics classes in college but didn't read this book, I think they told us to read Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto. Pity.
"You can make an impression with a few dozen people..."
Glenn and I cover a group of Knoxville citizens protesting an increase in their property assessments for PJTV.
You can watch the video here to see what a few dozen people can accomplish by organizing and meeting with their local politicians.
You can watch the video here to see what a few dozen people can accomplish by organizing and meeting with their local politicians.
Are liberal comedians cowards or just partisan hacks?
I was channel surfing last night and came upon George Lopez doing this comedy act from 2007. I was appalled when I heard him cursing President Bush with the F word for his decisions on immigration. The curse words flew and of course, his audience was eating it up. Lopez was unhappy with Bush's stance on immigration. Okay, fair enough. But what if he was unhappy with something Obama did, would he dare curse Obama directly using the F word as he did Bush? No way, and he knows it.
In yesterday's Washington Times article entitled, "For political comedians, the joke's not on Obama," the author notes the scarcity of satire:
And don't expect right-leaning comics to fill the void:
Glenn Beck sums it up:
So, coward or political hack, take your pick. Either way, neither speaks well of the character of these comedians or the people behind the major entertainment shows who refuse to give other views a chance to be heard.
In yesterday's Washington Times article entitled, "For political comedians, the joke's not on Obama," the author notes the scarcity of satire:
What's so unfunny?
That's what some comics - citing the scarcity of satire directed at President Obama and his administration - want to know.
Claiming that his peers are "panicky" about "being called a racist," stand-up legend Jackie Mason said too many once-fearless satirists are settling for "hero worship" of the new U.S. president.
The Great Presidential Comedy Drought of 2009 can't be chalked off to a lack of satirical fodder, said comic Jeffrey Jena, founder of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy blog. ("Looking at politics and life from the right side," proclaims its motto.)
"Letterman used to do a 'Bushism of the Week.' " Why hasn't he started one with Obama?" Mr. Jena said. "There's plenty of those moments, the 'Ohs, and 'Umms' or 'I don't speak Austrian.' "
And don't expect right-leaning comics to fill the void:
Comedian Nick DiPaolo said that although the new administration provides an opening for conservative humorists, that won't mean they suddenly start appearing on Mr. Letterman's couch.
Mr. DiPaolo, who mixes conservative-friendly material into his act, said the people behind the major entertainment shows "aren't going to let someone right of center jump into the arena."
Glenn Beck sums it up:
Radio and Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck, who kicks off a six-city stand-up comedy tour on June 1 in Denver, suggested that both fear and political calculation are inhibiting factors. Comedians like Mr. Letterman are "either afraid, or they know the power of comedy as a weapon and they like using it as that," he said.
So, coward or political hack, take your pick. Either way, neither speaks well of the character of these comedians or the people behind the major entertainment shows who refuse to give other views a chance to be heard.
Deadbeat Dads show back--now on Lifetime
As if Lifetime television doesn't portray men as villains enough already, now Glenn Sacks has emailed about the new Deadbeat Dad show (it was the "Bad Dads" show that Fox dropped) that the station has picked up, just to twist the knife a little deeper:
Glenn Sacks has more here and an email for those who wish to protest the show to the Hearst Corporation here.
Lifetime TV announced the launch of its new, father-bashing reality show Deadbeat Dads last week, and Lifetime received several thousand protest letters, calls and faxes last week. This week we take our protest to the Hearst Corporation, which owns much of Lifetime TV.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, �Deadbeat Dads, originally developed at Fox, follows National Child Support founder Jim Durham as he tracks down and confronts dads who don�t pay child support.� According to Reuters, Durham �functions as a sort of �Dog the Bounty Hunter� for tracking deadbeats�It�s ambush reality TV.� Durham will target fathers who are behind on their child support by �making their lives miserable � foreclosing on their house, repossessing their car. He will squeeze them.�
Last April, Fathers & Families led a highly-publicized campaign against the show (originally called �Bad Dads�) and got Fox to drop it. Now Lifetime TV, which reaches nearly 100 million households, has picked up Deadbeat Dads, which unfairly depicts divorced fathers as uncaring and selfish. Research clearly shows that most divorced dads pay their child support and remain a part of their children�s lives, often under difficult circumstances. In fact, federal government data shows that the overwhelming majority of �deadbeat dads� earn poverty level wages�only 4% earn even $40,000 a year.
Glenn Sacks has more here and an email for those who wish to protest the show to the Hearst Corporation here.
"One day it's empowerment when it suits their purposes and the next day it's exploitation."
Marc Rudov, the author of The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth
was on O'Reilly last night talking about bikini moms like Valerie Bertinelli. He makes some very good points about how women, on the one hand, want to show off their bodies and on the other, say they are exploited by men. "They exploit themselves," he states. "One day it's empowerment when it suits their purposes and the next day it's exploitation."
You can see Rudov's site and the video here.
was on O'Reilly last night talking about bikini moms like Valerie Bertinelli. He makes some very good points about how women, on the one hand, want to show off their bodies and on the other, say they are exploited by men. "They exploit themselves," he states. "One day it's empowerment when it suits their purposes and the next day it's exploitation." You can see Rudov's site and the video here.
The Spanking Controversy
A Newsweek article this week has a story about a school in South Carolina whose principal is using spanking as a form of discipline and is getting good results:
The article talks about the guilt that the principal feels over his method of discipline but perhaps he should take comfort in the work of Berkeley psychologist, Diana Baumrind:
The principal in the South Carolina school may use a paddle but he does not use it "frequently," and he does seem to have a consistent pattern of using corporal punishment. Parents are also brought into the equation and seem to be working with the principal toward expecting better behavior. This seems to me to be a help and not a hindrance to the kids in this town.
What do you think?
Before Nixon took over "John C," student behavior had gotten so bad that one teacher described it as "chaos." She eventually quit in disgust, pulled her own child from the school, and moved to a different one 45 minutes away. John C is located in a rural stretch of South Carolina near the Georgia border where all but one of the major textile plants have closed, and where the leading local employer is the school system. Nearly 90 percent of the kids at John C live below the poverty line. When Nixon went to his first PTO meeting, only about a dozen parents showed up at a school with 226 students. He still has trouble reaching many families by phone because they can't afford to put down a deposit on a landline. And yet Nixon has managed to turn John C around. It recently earned three statewide Palmetto awards, one for academic performance and two for overall improvement�the school's first such honors in its 35-year history. Not everyone agrees with his methods, but most parents and teachers will tell you he couldn't have pulled off such a turnaround without his wooden paddle.
The article talks about the guilt that the principal feels over his method of discipline but perhaps he should take comfort in the work of Berkeley psychologist, Diana Baumrind:
The studies cited by opponents of corporal punishment, Dr. Baumrind contended, often do not adequately distinguish the effects of spanking, as practiced by nonabusive parents, from the impact of severe physical punishment and abuse. Nor do they consider other factors that might account for problems later in life, like whether parents are rejecting or whether defiant or aggressive children might be more likely to be spanked in the first place.
Dr. Baumrind described findings from her own research, an analysis of data from a long-term study of more than 100 families, indicating that mild to moderate spanking had no detrimental effects when such confounding influences were separated out. When the parents who delivered severe punishment -- for example, frequently spanking with a paddle or striking a child in the face -- were removed from the analysis, Dr. Baumrind and her colleague, Dr. Elizabeth Owens, found that few harmful effects linked with spanking were left. And the few that remained could be explained by other aspects of the parent-child relationship.
''When parents are loving and firm and communicate well with the child,'' Dr. Baumrind said, ''the children are exceptionally competent and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as preschoolers.''
The principal in the South Carolina school may use a paddle but he does not use it "frequently," and he does seem to have a consistent pattern of using corporal punishment. Parents are also brought into the equation and seem to be working with the principal toward expecting better behavior. This seems to me to be a help and not a hindrance to the kids in this town.
What do you think?
Turnabout is fair play
John Hawkins at PJM:
Complaining bitterly about the Democrats� �politics of personal destruction� or bellyaching that the media doesn�t treat us fairly ultimately accomplishes nothing. The public doesn�t care.
Using the exact same tactics against the left that it uses against the right may very well be effective.
Even if it isn�t, it may at least convince them that such tactics ought to be off limits on both sides. We can say, �Gee, what if Bush had done this� or �That�s a cheap shot� all day long, but until our political opponents feel the brunt of the same savage incivility that it dishes out on a regular basis, nothing is going to change.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)