Temper Tantrums Are Now A "Disorder" (...or, "Are You S***ting Me?")

Earlier this year, I posted a piece here regarding some aspects of mental health related to behavioral, mostly as it relates to how we tend to over-diagnose children and teens in America. Most of the observations I made were based on reason my personal experience in working with (in some cases, so-called) “at-risk” kids. Fast forward to earlier this week.
I’m watching the news the other day, and the subject were the upcoming changes in the mental health profession’s “bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-V). In addition to expanding the scope of some mental disorders like autism, the revision of the DSM has redefined other well-known emotional and behavioral “maladies.” One of revisions that was brought up on the news segment was recognition of “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” (DMDD), better known as “extreme temper tantrums.”
As in the case of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and many cases of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (see previous posting: “ADHD, ODD, & Other Assorted Bull****!”), this “recognition” is not without its critics, both within and outside the mental health profession (see: “Critic Calls American Psychiatric Assoc. Approval of DSM-V “A Sad Day for Psychiatry”). And even without professional criticism, such an asinine move on the part of mental health professionals only goes to further malign the profession as a whole by laypeople. By this, I mean that many aspects mental health as a field of medicine as well as psychology in general already have their detractors, who question whether private and/or public resources should be diverted to addressing mental health concerns of those in need of such services. The insanity of calling modifiable behavior a “disorder” can go a long ways toward forcing those on the fence into likewise questioning the legitimacy of someone who is mentally unwell. This could conceivably affect public funding for these services that others who are genuinely in need of them could benefit from.
More to the point, calling a child’s temper tantrum a “disorder” is yet another way of absolving lazy parents of their hand in their child’s behaviors. This new “diagnosis” would be given to children (as well as and adults) who are not able to control their emotions, and who “have” frequent temper outbursts during inappropriate situations. To say that recognizing this behavior as a “disorder” goes well beyond bovine excrements. Kids (as well as people) don’t “have” temper tantrums in the same way that people “have” a seizure, or a migraine headache. Tantrums are a willful action on the part of those who engage in exhibiting them. They are simply the result of the lack of emotional training…there is nothing “abnormal” or involuntary about them.
In the same vein, I’m of the mindset that there are individuals who do in fact suffer from very real symptoms of ADHA and other true mental disorders—some. But in other cases like ODD, and temper tantrums, such diagnoses are just another potential opportunity for abuse by irresponsible parents and educators looking for an easy fix for plain old bad behavior, which will no doubt come in the form of psychotropic medicines. And such a predictable outcome is almost expected. Given how badly parents have had their disciplinary hands tied and their traditional (read: Old School) disciplinary attitudes watered down by New Age “experts” and others, who’s distorted perceptions blind them to the difference between “abuse” and discipline, there are few disciplinary options between the “time-out” and police involvement. Simply put, the fact that one parent, a policeman, or some other individual can handle an emotional tantrum while the primary parent cannot seems to indicate that it was not beyond the child’s ability to control himself, but rather, he chose to be a brat with the parent but, not another individual.

If more parents were responsible, took more of a (literal) hands-on approach in not tolerating their child’s bad behaviors, and if the police and other authorities would learn to stop taking such liberal attitudes toward parent’s who opt to use Old School disciplining techniques in rearing their children, it’s more likely we will see a reduction in “disorder” diagnoses like DMDD, and have the resources to divert to those who truly have emotional and/or mental issues. Not every behavior a child exhibits is an example clinical “problem.” Many are just parents who lack organic insights into raising a child, and teaching him/her proper emotional control and appropriate behavior as well as the recognition of boundaries. Stop the madness people! Temper tantrums are not a “disorder,” but a need for a parent to remind a child of his/her place!

Read More

Did That Internet Father Who Spanked His Daughters Go Too Far?

Before you get started reading, take a look at the video below.

The video features a woman who calls herself “Carmel Kitten.” She’s developed something of an internet following among urban men because of the way she performs a mostly-urban club dance called “The Twerk.” As you might have guessed, “Twerking” encompasses a woman suggestively moving her backside in a manner that mimics sexual gyrations. Apparently, this dance trend (and those women who perform it with the most sexually suggestive movements) has developed a cult-like following among urban youth and young adults. The above video featuring “Carmel Kitten” demonstrates how, and to what lengths some women will go to debase themselves in an effort to gain a sense of notoriety and recognition performing this dance (I guess it never occurred to her while she was in the library to pick up a book as she was demonstrating how tactless and classless she was showing herself to be).
Also—as you might have guessed—many of those who either like this particular dance or routinely objectify (i.e., sexually) the women who perform it see nothing wrong with doing either. However, there are some parents who find the dance so sexually suggestive and self-debasing that they are willing to do whatever it takes to instill in their children how unacceptable it is. Enter, Greg Horn of Dayton, Ohio. The 35-year-old father of two teenage girls rose to semi-notoriety—or rather infamy in some circles—this week when a video of surfaced online of his reaction to his daughters posting a video of themselves twerking on their Facebook pages. The video has since gone viral, and has been seen by more than 2 million people (LiveLeak.com). According to reports, Horn had instructed his 12 and 14-year old daughters to line up in against a wall (not shown) and began to whip them with a piece of a cable television cord. For some, the video of the father’s choice in disciplining his daughters for their actions elicited calls for his head on a platter for his act of brutality ("UPDATE: Ohio Dad Seen Whipping Daughters in Viral Video is Arrested").  Other applauded the father’s actions. The video is posted below (WARNING: Some might find this video disturbing).

In the video, the teenage girls were heard pleading with their father, crying and apologizing to her father, “I’m sorry daddy!” The video was apparently taped by the mother of the teenage girls. Their mother alerted the local police to the incident, and to the existence of the video. Horn was subsequently arrested, and has been charged with child endangerment and corporal punishment, authorities said on Thursday
Granted, the father got a little carried away, the daughters were way out of line too. And with all due respect to those who don’t agree with spanking as an accepted disciplinary measure for unruly children, it’s a sure bet that the father of these two young girls was thinking his daughters might be perceived as being the next “Carmel Kitten” when he opted to whip them. More so, one would think that given the negative image and notorious reputation that black males have for being deadbeat dads and/or absent fathers that his obligation to discipline his children as he saw fit would be applauded by more individuals.
The truth of the matter is that spanking is perceived far different and with more acceptance within the black community than among other ethnic communities in America, so there is clearly a cultural element at work here when a father chooses to discipline his children in such a manner. Statistics bear this out; 85% of black men “endorse spanking” (“Attitudes Toward Spanking”). Being an African-American male myself, this is a reality that I can attest to. In fact, as a Generation-Xer, most everyone I knew received spankings/whippings for bad behavior; “beatings” were reserved for the most egregious of behavioral transgressions. The same holds true for many, if not most Baby Boomers before us. These groups include most of the people who run this country—legislators at the state and federal levels, judges, Fortune 500 CEOs, and a host of other policy makers. What’s more, many adults (around my age or older) who were spanked as children often defend the practice. Many will tell you that they suffered no long-term negative effects, and agree that in many cases, spanking was needed.  For the most part, very few instances of what we endured as a generation could be construed as “abuse” (ignoring the fact that in today’s often unforgivably soft social climate, nearly anything constitutes “abuse” to a child).
Most of us adults come from a generation of kids who received direct parenting, and were spanked when it was needed (and yes, for some of it it was needed).  We were seldomly ever "abused" (I say this lightly because of what constitutes "abuse" today by those irresponsibly dedicated to a child's welfare). What's interesting is that kids today, who are part of the "time out" generation, seem the most undisciplined and most disrespectful. There are more apt to engage in actions and behaviors that those of us from previous generations wouldn't even dream of.

Last week's decision from a Washington state court to go ahead with the trial of a two 5th graders charged with the planned rape and murder of a female classmate is a testament to this generational difference ("2 Washington 5th Graders to Stand Trial for Rape and Murder Conspiracy") There is nothing wrong or "harmful" with a good swat on the butt to let a child know who is in charge.
In fact, and at the risk of sounding anecdotal, during my years as a youth counselor, case manager, and teacher, I have seen dozens upon dozens of bad parents—more than I thought were around—who were and are a lot more effective in hurting, abusing and scarring their children emotionally and psychologically than parents who engaged in whipping them (and yes, the overwhelming majority of my cases were those who didn’t spank/whip their children). Spanking, as a supplemental tool under the proper parenting structure shows a child concern by parents…far more than the neglect that I saw witnessed firsthand from parents who not only didn’t spank their children, but engaged in patterns of neglect and emotional abuse that leaves them needing a therapeutic solution to their resulting stunted emotional development than spanking.
My point is that spanking, used in conjunction with direct parenting (that includes talking, listening, showing concern, and being attentive) is just as much—if not more—effective a tool in effective parenting as most of the pseudo-emotional “tools” that New Age overly-liberal child-rearing “experts.” What’s more, used early with direct parenting that includes concern for the child’s welfare, spanking will usually become less needed as a child grows under the proper supervision and concern by a parent. I know this because most of the issues that I dealt with regarding “abuse” were related to emotional abuse, sexual abuse, or just growing up in an environment where the parents were apathetic to the fact that their children had needs beyond simply food, clothing, and shelter. In all my years working with children, I only had a single case where a child experienced physical abuse related to whippings. The opposition I find to cases like the Dayton father all seem to be based on emotional rather rational foundations.
To a reasoned thinker, a rational transaction is that the 30 (or more) seconds an openly disobedient child experiences at the business-end of a hickory switch or belt by a concerned parent is a small price to pay to avoid the far longer-lasting and crippling of their self-esteem and egos caused by debasing themselves as the next “Carmel Kitten” or internet "Jackass" wannabe.  Most parents who spank their children do so with the foresight of staving off the potential damage to their children of their life prospects by becoming prosecuted criminals who failed to receive reinforcement of the difference between right, wrong, and knowing their roles as children, not adults.
To those who think is an exaggerated statement, I offer up the following news item from yesterday’s airing from ABC’s “Good Morning America: Weekend Edition.” It showcases the recent arrest of teenagers who carjacked and kidnapped an 86-year-old woman who was simply trying to help them, locking her in the trunk of her own car as they rode around for 2 days.  It provides an illustration of how badly young people without direct parenting—and maybe the benefit of occasional spankings—can damage their lives (and others) more than the “abuse” of whippings.

Parents concerned about ensuring that their children grow up to make the right decisions should ask themselves whether or not it is worth the short-term pain a child might feel from a spanking is worth the pain of visiting them in prison or in a cemetery plot.  Do we limit our parenting to just "talking" in the hopes that children might understand the verbally-communicated consequences of their actions, or are we up to using whatever it takes to ensure that our children aspire to be the next internet-based, attention-seeking media whore that others will not respect because of the image they chose to project?
It is not society's place to tell another parent how to discipline their children. The fact that there are still parents in America willing to impose a little hurting on their children in order to save them from a great deal of hurt from consequences of unlearned lessons later in life—regardless of how those of us without the brass pair to do the same judge them—should be applauded and lauded, not condemned. For those who fail at least consider the larger picture, a spanking might be the difference between your own grandmother being locked in the trunk of her car or being killed on the spot by an unruly child without guidance.


See also: "To Spank Or Not To Spank? (Hell Yes!)"

Is Spanking An Acceptable Form Of Punishment?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Read More

ADHD, ODD, & Other Assorted Bull****!

Last week, there was word in the news that there has been a marked rise the number of children diagnoses with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD On Rise Among Minority, High-Income Families").  The implication is that this rise in diagnoses of this accepted disorder reflects the recognition that many challenging behaviors exhibited by children nowadays can be explained away. But does clinical intervention explain away many negative behaviors in children?
Let’s face it…America is a blame-oriented society. During the last 25 years or so, we’ve come to routinely blame either some perceived and “foreseeable” circumstance or other individuals for anything that occurs that results in some real or imaginary harm to us. As soon as something happens—a vehicle crash, a spilled cup of hot coffee, or an intended compliment taken as a harassing statement—we’re burning rubber away from the scene of the perceived slight, headed to the nearest lawyer’s office. Our ultimate goal is to seek monetary redress for the irreparable “damage” to our egos, sensitivities, or the infliction of some highly subjective (and questionable) “pain and suffering” on our lives.
Aside from replacing baseball with a new favorite American past time—suing—such insane thinking has resulted in a new ethos among Americans. We have grown to attribute what happens to us on circumstances rather than our own individual short-sighted judgments or actions. This is a phenomenon that I have witnessed among America’s youth, day in and day out for the last 15 or so years that I have been working with them. And the most tangible example of this devil-made-me-do-it mentality are the results of our nation’s clinical health professionals over-diagnosing neurobehavioral “disorders” such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD).
No, I’m not a clinician as such. However, growing up in a time period where such “disorders” were not known or even identified as such, it’s hard for me to accept their validity as bona fide maladies. Back in my day, “hyperactivity” (as symptoms strings related to such currently acknowledged behaviors was called) was dealt with by the influence and coercive power of a social ethos that both reinforced self-discipline and responsible parenting. Back then, children who couldn’t seemingly sit still for some reason were not indulged with some new-age “understanding” of their “condition;” they were told to “sit down and stop moving.” And because most other children were told the same thing and reared in the same manner, the individual desire within these children not to stand out in such comparatively more rigid social times because of their behaviors was enough—more or less—to keep their actions in check. General thinking of the time helped to mitigate these issues to a great extent.
Parents, for the most part, were governed by a variation of this same socially-powered sense of responsibility when it came to raising children with these issues. This is to say that parents were more cognizant as well as sensitive to the potential stigma of being considered a “bad parent” by allowing their children to run amok in school and around the community. In the home, such rambunctious behaviors were oftentimes considered a sign of disobedience toward parents…and which simply wasn’t tolerated by parents who were both compelled and duty-bound—also by force of social expectations—to correct such behaviors (notice I said behaviors, not “affliction”).
True, there had always been some level of empirical medical science that validated the reality of some children having a “hyperkinetic disorder” as early as the 1960s (as ADHD was called back then), it was more or less identified within the realm of constant physical movements. Later, other “symptoms” were added to this phenomenon, giving it something of a psychological dimension. Now, verbal and cognitive impulsiveness were added alongside motor impulsiveness as a component of the condition, which lead to the belief that combined, these “symptoms” were related to behavioral issues. The new string of “symptoms” attributed to ADHD soon qualified it (somehow) as a medical diagnosis.
When Adderall and other psychotropic drugs were introduced in the 1990s to combat this now-recognized “medical/psychological disorder,” it sort of let parents off the hook for certain behaviors exhibited by their children. Not only did drugs provide a quick fix alternative to rambunctious and oftentimes out-of-control behavior that was at one time addressed by direct parenting, but gave many parents a medical validation of their children’ behaviors. And needless to say, children were just as eager to adopt an excuse for why they would choose to engage in such behaviors. And living in a blame-oriented society, both children engaged in behaviors excused by ADHD and their parents have seized upon this “out” as a means of justifying their actions and lack of responsible parenting, respectively.
The same dynamic plays out even more when it comes to ODD—the three-dollar bill of clinical diagnoses. In fact, as I work with kids questionably labeled with this get-out-of-jail free card, I often find myself asking, “What’s the difference between a child who has ODD and a spoiled brat?”
As a current case manager, former long-term substitute teacher, and older adult who remembers a time when those around me were not engaged in behaviors that could be written off as some form of neurological impairment, the hardest part of my position is to work within the parameters of (some) diagnoses I simply don’t agree with. While granted, I come across some children who’s behaviors definitely indicate that there is some crossed wires somewhere in their gray matters, many others are just the victims of (a) diagnosis that’s used as a general categorization of misbehaviors that our post-take-them-to-the-woodshed society is not willing to concede as being just another bratty kid in need of more direct parenting…and an occasional hickory switch to the their backsides!
I see my fair share of children who throw tantrums and hissy-fits whenever their parents tell them “no,” as well as those who seem to give Oscar-worthy portrayals as a deaf person when it comes to telling them to do something. For the minority among these children whom I would classify as being accurately diagnosed as having disorders along these lines, the drugs do make a great difference in their behaviors. But for many other kids whom clinicians decide to slap these labels on, I find it enables these children’ negative behavior, providing them with yet another excuse not to comply with (parental) authority. Furthermore, it absolves parents of responsibility for their children’ behaviors, as well as burdens teachers—already overwhelmed with other children and related-responsibilities—with having to deal with bad kids that medical “professionals” had decided are “learning impaired” and therefore, warrant special dispensation when it comes to expectations of learning.
The problem I have with ADAH, ODD, and other fairytale-like beliefs when it comes to our children’ behavior is that the criteria for making such assessments are totally subjective; they are defined entirely in terms of their symptoms, not in terms of some malfunction of the body. This is to say that a diagnosis of either of these imaginary afflictions are not based on objectively measurable factors, such as chemical imbalances or MIR scans of know behavioral maladies like chronic depression and schizophrenia (yes, I know about scans that "seem to indicate differences in the brains of ADHD children, but like the "gay gene," this is nothing more than uncorroborated medical speculation in children where the conclusion of ADHD is made simply by a doctor literally looking at them). They seem to be predicated more on moral judgments of social expectations.
Take for example criteria for diagnosing a “case of ODD.” Among the list of “symptoms” which indicates the presence of this “disorder” are: “actively defies often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules;” “often deliberately annoys people’ “is often spiteful or vindictive,” and so forth. Hell, that doesn’t sound a disorder to me…it sounds like Macaulay Culkin’s character description of “Kevin McCallister” from the Home Alone movies! The logical implication of this insanity is that if a child were exhibiting these characteristics toward home invaders instead of his/her parents, they would be applauded as rightfully “resisting criminals.” But since such behavior is at odds with teachers, parents, and other authority figures familiar to said child, it’s “recognized” as a “disorder.” Yeah, right.  Isn’t it funny that ADHD and ODD are characterized by unusual negative behaviors rather than unusual compliant behaviors?
As it stands, the over-diagnosing of these issues—I believe—are the result of a combination of changing social trends (i.e., emerging and competing schools of thought on how to raise children), the stronger emotional influence of the media, and the advancements in medical technology and research. I believe these to be valid factors contributing to the rise in diagnoses of both ADHA and ODD…when applicable. However, trying to validate a child’s negative behavior by giving it a clinical “cause” is license to children that that they have the right to defy parents and teachers…that there is a “valid” reason why they engage in such behaviors. In a sense, those who take this path of jaded and questionable thinking would be right, but not in the way they think. If everyone involved would go back to the levels of universal responsible parenting, along with the power of conformity when it comes to rearing children, the number of children and teens over diagnosed with these issues would dramatically shrink!

Read More

"Whatever Happened To Saturday Morning Cartoons?"

Warning: This is not one of my regular "what's wrong with society" rants. If you're looking for something politically-stimulating, you might want to wait until my next posting!

As I was performing my usual Saturday morning deep clean of my place, I had my television on and tuned to one of the weekend network news programs. It was an attempt to multitask, using my peripheral hearing (if such a thing exist) to keep abreast of whatever events the knuckleheads of the world decided to create in the name of making our planet a better place to live…at least by their narrow standards.
While listening, I began thinking about how as a child, I as well as other Generation Xer’s (and before us, Baby Boomers) spent our Saturday mornings…watching cartoons. Of course back then, there were only 3 networks (4 if you count Johnny-come-lately Fox sometime in the mid-80s). And because many individuals in the television industry still considered the weekends to be a time for both leisure and family, the networks used this time to create original (there’s a word you don’t hear used often with network television these days) programming at a time when both children and their parents would be watching together.
But about 20 years ago—beginning in the early 1990s—network television started gearing Saturday morning television toward adults. The result is what we see today; the major networks airing adult-oriented news (complete with fluff) every Saturday morning, in their continued saturation of minds seeking a limited understanding of events and issues which we can blame on those with opposing political views. This all got me to wondering…whatever happened to Saturday morning cartoons?
Needless to say, this was something I found necessary to look into the background of in order to understand why such an integral part of many childhoods no longer exists.

In The Beginning:

For those unfortunate enough not to have experienced such relatively simpler (and imaginative) times, it’s necessary to understand that there was no internet, no computer is nearly every home, no video games, no zillion-channel cable TV subscriptions, no children eager to shed their childhoods too early because they understood boundaries. There were structured homes, complete with chores, children who weren’t given a choice but to attend school…and only 3 major television networks. These things kept us plenty busy and otherwise occupied during the week to the point where we were looking forward to the 3-4 hours during the weekend that life—and television—catered exclusively to us.
In the early days of Saturday morning television, the networks utilized cartoons from [the] major movie studios which had been shown previously in theaters (the 1940s and 50s) prior to the feature film presentation. Cartoon shorts from Warner Brothers’ Merry Melodies characters (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc.), along with Paramount Pictures (Popeye the Sailor), Fleischer Studios (Superman) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (Tom & Jerry) and others were spliced together to create entire shows featuring the individual and associated characters that aired during the time initial period of Saturday morning in the early 1960s.

Sometime during the mid 60s, the major networks indeed understood that this time period was when children and their parents were more than likely watching television together. This reality spurred the idea that advertisers could use this time period to plug child and family-oriented merchandise such as breakfast cereals, toys, and sneakers (with children being proxy high-pressured salesmen for these products).  As both time and Saturday morning television progressed, programming began featuring exclusively television-created fare, a combination of both older animated features like The Flintstones and The Jetsons—both of which were once primetime adult-themed shows—and features from network-contracted studios which focused solely on animation (Hanna-Barbera Productions, Filmation Associates, and DePatie-Freleng Enterprises).
Eventually, beginning in the late-1960s and early 70s, the networks started contracting for more original programming…and advertisers followed suit. With so much time and money vested in this time period, the networks began promoting their respective Saturday morning children’ lineups as much as they would their weeknight primetime programming. In fact, prior to the beginning of each new fall television season—usually on a Friday night a week or two before the new season started—the networks would host a primetime preview special, hosted by some recognizable primetime television personality. Original program included Fat Albert And The Cosby Kids, The Superfriends, Hong Kong Phooey, and a universe of others. Other original programs included animated spinoffs to lie-action primetime adult shows, such as Alf, The Brady Kids, Star Trek, The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang, and many others.

All was well in animation and childhood innocence land. In the early to mid-1970s, children all over America were spending their Saturday morning engaged in cartoon escapism, doing chores around the house, or something similarly constructive. We were getting our fill of animated coyotes running into painted holes on rock faces, supermen stopping rockslides with their bare hands, and little blue forest-dwellers tricking their enemies into opening exploding gift-wrapped boxes…which none of these stunts were emulated by us kids. Remember, parents were actually watching these shows with children.

The Start of The Decline of Saturday Morning Television:

But not everyone watching Saturday morning children’s television was amused. Forces were gathering from both outside and within the industry which would soon spell the end of an era for this symbol of television and youthful innocence from the days of old.
During the 1970s, network executives began to be swayed by the influence and the rise of parent watchdog groups (such as the Action for Children's Television) seeking to limit the amount of questionable themes underpinning many Saturday morning children’ programming, such as the “message” of “gratuitous violence,” “stereotyping,” and other “negative content.” Hoping to stave off the growing chorus of government regulation of these programs, the networks began to sanitize the programming airing in the once-coveted Saturday morning time period. Shows were now pressured to air programming which highlighted for example the virtues of friendship, teamwork, the power of goodness, and other notions as sugary-coated as the cereal commercials between these programs.  Many shows which didn’t convey newly-instituted themes of positive moral and/or ethical values were no longer aired on network television. Instead, old favorites like the Superfriends were retooled to include object lessons for regular viewers. In addition, new shows contained heavy doses of moral anecdotes and/or a more lighthearted appeal, such as the live-action Shazam! and The Kroff’s Supershow (forgotten in this morass of clashing ideologies was the fact that older cartoons were geared toward a different audience, with a different level of sensitivities. Children were starting to be raised differently, with less adult supervision).

In addition, the networks also punctuated regular animated (and live-action) programming with short educational-oriented spots in an effort to maintain the integrity of this television time period as a kids-centered marketing focal point, whereby they could keep advertising dollars coming in. These included Schoolhouse Rock, Time for Timer, and In The News.
However, by the 1980s, many animation companies found it more and more difficult to produce new programming which adhered to the new guidelines. In some cases, the networks sought programs produced from other countries, as exhibited by ABC’s Mighty Orbots from the mid-80s. Furthermore, the demands by networks for new original programming (adhering to the new standards) put a level of strain on the production companies. Union actors/voice actors demanded better working conditions, striking to demand an end to labor-intensive production requirements which often caused them work to the point of strained fatigue. The networks began seeking non-union actors who could fill this void. Finally, many of the executives and creative teams responsible for the best Saturday morning cartoons from the period of the 70s and 80s had began either retiring en masse, or were transferred to other programming departments.
Ultimately, when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did begin officially compelling educational and content requirements—the "educational or informative" (E/I) logos placed at the beginning of each program—this made it harder for networks to find children programming with the same entertainment value and commercial appeal as that it had promoted during the previous decades. This new reality, coupled with the rise of syndicated cartoon offerings from non-network affiliated television (G.I. Joe, Transformers, and The ThunderCats, and so many others) that weren’t affected by the new standards; the rise of cable networks geared exclusively toward children (Nickelodeon and The Disney Channel); the rise of revenue-generating infomercials in Saturday morning timeslots, and the one-by-one folding of animation production companies made traditional Saturday morning children programming unappealing to network executives.

By the early to mid-1990s, traditional Saturday morning television became pretty much extinct, succeeded by a few teen-oriented offerings (e.g., Saved By The Bell). With availability of many of these older cartoons on VCR tapes (and later DVDs), the era of the Saturday morning television schedule for children officially ended.
Instead of waking up Saturday mornings, watching cartoons which indulge youthful fantasies and reinforce the notion of what a wonderful and innocent time childhood should be, children—and adults—today are oversaturated with adult news of an adult world which forces them to grow up and lose their innocence earlier than they should. How I miss the days when we could take one day off during the week from real life and just laugh a little, or engage in a few hours escapism that makes living a little bit easier.
Just a little food for thought on a Saturday morning.

(See also: The Future is Now…and It Sucks! (or..."When I Was Your Age...!))

Read More

Sandy Hook, Guns, & Questions!

When I see tragedies like that occurring in Connecticut yesterday, it becomes somewhat difficult to defend my thoughts that limiting gun ownership only hurts legal gun owners, and not the criminals…who tend not to follow the laws of gun purchasing anyway (see: "Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?").  But with 27 people killed by one lone gunman—including 20 children and 7 adults, including the shooter’s own mother—we are left with nothing but questions instead of answers.

Unidentified Sandy Hook Elementary School staff member leads students to safety

What can we do when our resources for mental health are being limited by cuts, and money becomes the primary concern over potential public (or self) safety? How do we balance privacy laws with the public's right to know when dangerous mental illnesses are a factor with unstable individuals?  How do we compel those with mental/emotional issues to seek help when such issues are so stigmatized that individuals who suffer from them—both marginally and extremely—would rather embrace denial than assistance? How can we balance the right of individuals, particularly those with mental and/or emotional illnesses, and the greater good?

What do we do when legitimate gun owners reflexively scream, “My rights..!” in defense of their legal right to own a weapon…no matter how ridiculous some of the gun laws are? How can we maintain the balance of gun owner’s rights to potentially defend themselves, while limiting the number of guns on the streets?

Is it healthy to create a siege mentality within our public school in the name of safety?

How can we craft gun crime laws in such a way as to make any act by gun-toting criminals prohibitive by way of punishment?

As I said a couple of posting ago, sometimes our “rights” get in the way of the greater good (see: "Too Many Rights Make Wrong.").  And maybe as individuals, we should start considering focusing less on our individual wants and likes and more on what’s best for everyone involved.
No matter how “pro-gun” you are, the deaths of 20 young children is just a little hard to defend, either politically, ideologically, or realistically.

Concealed gun laws, state-by-state (click to enlarge)

Maybe there should be a means testing for gun ownership...the weapons and amount of weapons one is allowed to purchase should be in proportion to the threat of one's environment or their actual profession...it would maintain gun ownership, BUT limit the amount of available weapons in the streets possible criminals and nut-cases to acquire. Maybe under such a policy, people living in the violence in gang-infested Chicago would have the means to defend themselves, while the George Zimmerman's of America wouldn't have to overreact to imaginary threats!

Read More

Adults...Children's Worst Enemy! Conclusion

Forget the questionable (and often rash) decisions that young people can and do make—sometimes leading to tragic consequences. Forget about cyber- or actual in-the-flesh bullying that some teenagers perpetrate against one another. Don’t even think about the last time you witnessed a fight between teens in high school hallways. When you think about the safety and well-being of today’s youth, think about the shock-value inherent in the actions Jerry Sandusky and the whole Penn State crew. Or think about Jessica Ridgeway, the 10-year-old Colorado girl who went missing for a week before she was found dead and dismembered. If you want to know the source of the issues today’s youth have to deal with, you needn’t go further than the nearest mirror.

Many so-called adults in America are simply bad parents! And while I know that questioning the child-rearing capabilities of many of today’s mothers (and fathers) by a man is the female equivalent of telling a man his penis is too small, many simply are doing a terrible job at raising today’s kids…the results of which we see as part of many a human interest story on the evening news. Take for example the recent story of Jessica Stilwell, the Canadian mother who recently made news by “going on strike” in order to “teach her kids a lesson” (yes, I know Canada is not a part of the United States, but I used this particular news item illustrate my overall point, which Stilwell’s actions illustrate). The frustrated mother, proclaiming herself to be tired of “constantly reminding, cleaning, and nagging her children” about cleaning up the mess they would make of the house daily, refused to clean up behind her 10 and 12-year daughters, videotaping the results of her refusal to clean up the residence and posting them on Facebook. An online article of the story at the Huffington Post supported the mother’s actions by reporting that “the results will make you want to pump your fists and do a solidarity dance.”

Quite the contrary, as I read the story I imagined kicking my feet off in their backsides to illustrate the roles and responsibilities of responsible parents. This kind of lazy parenting and overly-liberal attitude toward modern child-rearing does nothing more but reinforce a child’s thinking that they are the ones in charge of our homes. I actually found myself thinking, “Who’s the child in this family?”
Today’s parents—due to time constraints, laziness, irresponsibleness, guilt, or stupidity—are simply too afraid to apply and instill any measure of discipline in their children, and the rest of us pay the price. As a former camp counselor for at-risk teens, I would see and experience the results of such questionable parenting up close and personal (I spent 24 hours a day, anywhere from 7-15 days at a time, sleeping, eating, and using the bathroom out in the woods for 2 years with these teens—I dare you tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about). I also saw how others in society are eventually forced to clean up the mess that other parents make when I was a long-term substitute teacher. Parents are all-too willing to accept any excuse for the behaviors of their children (a dubious clinical medical diagnosis, social trauma, or simply “being different”) other than the most reasonable explanation…they are simple not doing what they should be doing to raise children to be responsible adults.
No parent should have to go “on strike” in order to encourage their children to clean up. First and foremost, children should be taught how to clean up from the earliest moments they are able to hold a broom handle competently; I know that was the case in our house. My mother taught my siblings and I how to clean a house from top-to-bottom. In addition, she taught us how to iron out clothes (including how to align the hems in pants), and cook. During my stint as a camp counselor, teenage boys (and girls) would tell me how they didn’t know how to make up a bed because they usually had such a simplistic chose performed by them by over-doting (and irresponsible) mothers. If there should ever be a “strike” in a house, it should be the strike of a belt or an open hand against an unruly backside! Call it “barbaric,” call it “outdated,” but I’ve seen how spankings used in conjunction with active parenting works (See: "To Spank Or Not To Spank? Hell Yes!"). Back in the day, the police would pick up unruly children, and take them home to an expected meeting of hickory switch and butt by a responsible. Now in a perverse role-reversal, police are expected to jail parents who care about their children enough to ensure they aren’t a danger to themselves (or others). For the sake of any children that I might someday raise (and the nieces and nephews I helped to raise), I would hope that the local authorities would adopt an equivalent to a witness protection program in the event that one should decide to call the authorities on me for doing my job as a parent...and that's the attitude most parents and guardians should have!  And I’ve talked to many parents who quake in their shoes at the prospect of going to jail for administering a spanking to their children. In effect, their children are in control of the household, coming, going, and doing as they please.
The result is a generation of children who have little respect for adults. It’s one of the reasons an incident occurring at the end of the last school year in New York caught so much attention. Almost everyone remembers the story of 68-year old former bus monitor Karen Klein, who was taunted at the hands of disrespectful middle-schoolers to the point visibly crying. The entire incident was captured on video tape by others on the bus as it occurred.

To their credit, the middle-schoolers apologized publicly to the former bus monitor. However, it took shaming on a national stage before they developed the testicular fortitude to do so. It also illustrates how little respect that today’s kids have for adults who, by virtue of their parents’ fears and ineptitude as parents, have instilled in them the idea that they are the equal of adults…which they are most certainly not! 
If parents do not do their jobs, they should expect others to take the initiative to do so. This happened earlier this year in Texas. A 6-year old kindergartner attending Salinas Elementary School, near San Antonio, Texas had developed a reputation for being a bully at the school (and it’s only reasonable to believe that the parents had been notified of their child’s status as a school bully). So his teacher devised a lesson for the class’s resident terror; the teacher had each of the “24 other students in the class line up and slap Neely one-by-one” (See: "Mom Says Teacher Had Students Slap Her Son").   Granted, such an overboard action has its risks, it also illustrates how society will develop ways to correct aberrant behavior in children whose parents fail in their responsibility to instruct them in how to interact with others. Sadly, the teacher was fired by school officials (you guessed it...I applaud such actions as instructional objects in the pitfalls of bullying).  We need more adults willing to take such hard approaches in order to teach life-long lessons to such kids who parents are obviously not up to the task!

This is not to say that there are not responsible parents left in America. Some not only do engage in regular directing and responsible parenting, but they are not the sort who hovers over their children’s every actions in the name of keeping them from potential harm. Too many parents are raising wimps. They do not allow their children to explore their limitations. They put a bandage on every scratch and scrape. They are afraid to let their children do this or that without a suit of armor. As children, my friends and I explored every nook and cranny of our city…without relative harm. We climbed trees. We went to local ponds, explored abandoned houses (this was before they became havens for dope fiends), and always traveled in packs for safety. And our parents were well aware what we were doing.
But today, even when parents are responsible and aware enough not to treat their children like fragile glass, other over-doting parents tend to overact. In La Porte, Texas, a stay-at-home mother was arrested on a charge of child abandonment after one of her neighbors called the police because on the complaint that her children to play outside their mother’s immediate presence, which was not true. On its face, the case was eventually dismissed by authorities. The mother is in the process of suing the local police for false arrest (See:  "Mom Sues Police After Being Arrested for Letting Her Kids Play Outside").

It's sad that the paranoia fear of other weak parents has to interfere with how another chooses to allow her children the freedom to be independent (and to grow).
If this was the worst the mother can do in regards with raising her kids, she could do a lot worse. Many Americans see far worse on a weekly basis in the form of parents who exploit their children for fame. The Learn Channel’s “Toddlers and Tiaras” and the “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” spin off caters to the lowest in decadent parental behavior. Such shows sexualize and objectify underage girls, and puts their emotional and physical health at risk for the same of fame…of a sick perversion of it. And the fact that such shows garner so many viewers is indicative of how far we’ve such as a society in how we validate and enable bad parenting.

"Honey Boo Boo" from TLC's series of the same name

The bottom line was parenting and parents was much better back in the day.  When I was younger, playgrounds were covered with rocks, not padding. We weren’t mandated to wear bicycle helmets. We stayed away from our homes for hours at a time. There was an underlying element of minimal danger, but our parents were OK with it all. Parents spanked, and police would often collaborated with the dynamic. It didn’t mean parents were less responsible; quite the contrary, they were more responsible. We didn’t have courts, interloping social services organizations on hair triggers for any perceived sign of “abuse” (to which, the scope of what constitutes such has become so wide as to encompass everything short of yelling “boo”), or interfering paranoid adults who bring their personal judgments and prejudices into how others responsibly raise their children. Our parents weren't parading us in front of the world in order to gain the notoriety of an audience who couldn't give a damn about our emotional and physical health.  And we as children were definitely more respectful to not only our parents but most adults. 
We need to get back to the spirit of tough love in raising children, allowing them the privilege and opportunity of exploration in order to facilitate both their independence and growth. But at the same time, being cognizant of the need to restraint impulsiveness and disrespectful attitudes, as well as ungratefulness for having their immediate needs (not wants) met. And we definitely need to get back to the understanding that what you do in your house with your children definitely affects how the rest of us have to deal with your mistakes as parents!And this is something every adult can do, not just parents.

Read More

Adults...Children's Worst Enemy! Part 1

Over the past year, I have time again come across examples of young people—children and teenagers—making questionable decisions, and involved in questionable behaviors. Forget about the children I see in working with at-risk youth and their parents; I’m talking about those engaged in decisions which have become newsworthy human interest stories that illustrate a certain social pathology in behavior among our youth. What’s more, many of the questionable decisions I have witnessed children make today have had the tacit or explicit blessing of their parents. This leads me to conclude that the reasons today’s American youth are so trapped in an ethos of negative decision-making is due to the adults in their lives as both negative influences and as mentors.
Take for example 19-year Miami native Amanda Rodriguez. A day before her 17th birthday, she underwent the radical medical procedure—radical for a teenager—known as gastric bypass surgery. Watching the health segment on NBC’s Today Show from a June airing spotlighting Rodriguez’ decision, I decided to research not only her case, but those involving other teenagers either considering or having undergone the final-option procedure for weight loss. I was surprised to learn that something under 1,000 teens a year have some kind of medical procedure related to stimulating weight-loss in dangerously obese children.

Granted, there are many benefits of this radical medical procedure for those young people who opt to undergo it, the fact that such an extreme measure is needed at all to address health issues related to teenage obesity—issues such as high blood pressure and diabetes—speaks volumes about how much bad parenting and by adults mentoring adversely affects young people.And the ironic thing about this procedure is that:

Surgery usually requires preliminary weight loss and then a strict postsurgical regimen of dietary changes, vitamins, and exercise. If the teen and his family aren't fully committed, the results can evaporate quickly or fail to materialize in the first place (see: "Surgery Is No Quick Fix for Obese Teens").

In addition, there are other possible post-surgery complications based on unrealistic expectations of the radical and often irreversible surgery, including an “increased likelihood” of nutritional and vitamin deficiencies, possible follow-up surgeries, and anemia. Teens receiving this surgery “must be committed to becoming more active and eating healthier for life,” indicating that there are life-long obligations and consequences of having to undergo such a radical means of confronting childhood obesity. The funny thing is that the same level of healthy and active lifestyles required after such procedures could have been employed by responsible parents prior to the decline of their overall health by simply monitoring their children’s diets…things parents are supposed to do.

 A superimposed photograph of a teenager from the 1950s and today.

Instead, we have a nation of parents who enable such deleterious decisions by their children by shirking their responsibility to directly parent to their children, opting instead to avoid the conflicts and tantrums inherent in opposing their desires. In the case of fattening our children, it should come as no surprise that many parents often reward their children with food for various reasons. In addition, many parents do nothing to discourage laziness in today’s crop of youth; I can’t tell you how much I have heard older teenagers whine and complain about having to actually walk someplace as opposed to being chauffeured by parents who have too-little time to spare for such menial tasks. Furthermore, we are no longer a nation of manual labor; we have not only become too dependent on technology, but actual work—especially that consisting of breaking a sweat of even minimal amounts of physical exertion–is almost unheard of. And then we wonder how is it that our children have become so fat and lazy…!  Our inexplicable addiction to watching the misadventures of “Honey Boo-Boo” anesthetizes us to the health-related dangers of over-indulging (and in Boo-Boo’s case, exploiting) our kids for whatever reason!

And then there is the sense of morals—or lack thereof—that parents nowadays instill in their children. Earlier in the year, I was watching CNN’s sister network, Headline News when it aired a piece featuring a controversy involving former adult “actress” (although I think “actress” in such a context stretches the credibility of the word) Alana Evans. Evan was fired from her job as a public school science teacher after her co-workers had revealed that she had been an x-rated porn star. An administrator for the school where Evans had been fired from asserted that “her presence would disrupt student learning.” Having been a long-term substitute myself, I applaud the school district’s decision as a prudent move to avoid the distraction her presences would have no-doubt caused.
What I found so astonishing was Evans’ unapologetic attitude about her sordid past; she was literally a “working mother” at the time of her involvement in her former profession. She proudly defended her decision to seek out such work in order to “take care of her children.” While I agree that being able to put food into the bellies on one’s children is important, so too is what we feed their hearts and minds. A sense of morals and responsible parenting is just as important a contribution to a child’s upbringing as ensuring their nutritional and material needs are met.
My mother used to say that “all money isn’t good money,” and perhaps no level of questionable decision-making illustrates this notion than this (and other related) instance. The problem with being able to justify our actions, our responsibility to take care of our children is that it fosters a sense that making money is the most important thing in the world—no matter what the moral and/or social implications. This mentality doesn’t make much room for being able to look our in children in their eyes and explain to them that we were able to meet their needs in ways which don’t (or shouldn’t) foster a sense of embarrassment in having to explain one’s choice. And one can only think of the stigma Evans’ children would have to endure because of her ill-thought-out decision to take on a vocation with such negative social connotations attached to it. In short, just being able to house, feed, and clothe a child doesn’t necessarily make one a good mother. Yes, it sounds a little judgmental, but maybe judgments are what we need in order to become better models for our children. How many of us would really want our children to mimic our mistakes in judgment? “Legal” doesn’t necessarily mean “right.”
When I was a teenager, my mother took me and my younger brother out with her to farm fields to help her pick fruits and vegetables in order for us to pay our rent and utilities. She didn’t have to resort to such a morally bankrupt vocation in order to take care of us…and I have nothing but respect for her for not having to do anything she would be ashamed to tell us about. Bottom line, there are always options which don’t emotionally scar our children as we fight for their souls trying to raise them. However, too many adults don’t consider the consequences of their often selfish thinking when it comes to how we influence children today. And then we wonder why our children think it’s ok to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want…!  It's because of our often selfish decisions as poor role models for teaching children that the ends justifies the means.

To be concluded...!

Read More

Father Saves Young Girl...On Video

If you're one of those sorry individuals who watches the evening news and sits with anticipation of the next "perp-walk" spotlighting another one of those people, please make a note of Stephen St Bernard.
Bernard, a 52-year-old bus driver and father was walking home from work after finishing his shift when he heard a commotion from a nearby small crowd. Interested, he diverted from his path to investigate what was going on. Happening upon the scene, he saw a crowd of bystanders looking up and frozen into inaction at what they were watching.
What happened next should give even the most hardened skeptics of human behavior pause to re-think what "those people" are capable of.
Watch the video to see the events unfold.

Read More

The You Tube Father's Laptop Shooting - You Go, Boy!

So by now, everyone who is interested has seen the now viral video of the North Carolina father who posted a video on You Tube of himself railing on his teenage daughter, ending with his melodramatic shooting up a laptop belonging—or rather formerly so—to her. The video, which father Tommy Jordan posted, was a response to his 15-year-old daughter’s Facebook-posted profanity-laden diatribe against her own parents for it appears, holding her to reasonable expectations as a child living under the responsibility, the authority, and the roof of her parents.



Setting aside the twin truths that: (1) I have been working with kids and teens in one form or fashion for the last decade or so, and am well aware of their narcissistic perspectives; and (2) that I am quite familiar with how often most of today’s teenagers exaggerate occurrences involving themselves, I am more than inclined to take the father at his word after watching the video—even without hearing the daughter’s side of the story. The simple fact is that today’s American youth—outside of each other’s approval—don’t respect a whole lot, especially the inherent and actual authority of adults, including their parents. To today’s teens, rules are merely suggestions and when they [routinely] break rules, they are often coddled by a justice system already overwhelmed with dealing with adult crimes.
After reading multiple online articles and posts about the shootings myself, it seems that public opinion is pretty split down the middle for support and condemnation of the father’s actions.
Regular readers to Beyond The Political Spectrum already know where I personally stand on the issue of parental disciplining of noncompliant and rebellious children; the Old School way of bringing up children is simply the best, the most result-proven way. Under the Old School regime of raising children, there was social consensus for the parent’s right to occasionally whip unruly children, including among law-enforcement and the courts…as long as parents didn’t cross the line into abuse. During those times, “abuse” was more narrowly-defined, prohibiting such blatant actions resulting in major physical trauma, such as cigarette burns, choking, broken limbs, and/or otherwise adversely affecting the child’s long-term physical health (by comparison, “abuse” today constitutes anything that may result in a broken fingernail or leaves a bad thought in a child’s head).
The direct parenting of the old ways enforced compliance with curfews, the authority of adults (especially parents and teachers), compelled school attendance and in most cases, academic performance, and cavorting with familiars (back in those days, if parents didn’t know a child’s friend or their parents, children weren’t allowed to play with them). Children didn’t expect everything to be given to them on a whim. Chores were performed based on nonnegotiable expectations. Substance abuse was the exception, not the rule, as direct parenting made parents well aware of their children’s proclivities and inclinations. Those with overly-liberal attitudes toward raising children—those who invariably condemn Jordan’s actions—can only blame themselves for how today’s children have turned out. “Sanctions” are limited to talking to children in a “therapeutic” manner (which flies in the face of logic; if such “solutions” were in fact valid, then we wouldn’t jail adults for breaking the law…we’d talk to them). We often make unjustified excuses for their actions. Half of us whine and scream, “Abuse” if parents even raise their voices at chronically unruly children, affecting the half of responsible parents who do believe in being given a free hand to raise their children in a manner they deem appropriate. It’s hard to imagine that many Americans either don’t remember, or don’t yearn for those relatively better parenting experiences.
Those who condemn the North Carolina’s father’s actions are simply not looking at the big picture; he could have just as well put the bullets in his daughter for publicly disrespecting her and his wife as responsible parents. But for showing restraint—and innovative thinking—as a parent in dealing with today's often disrespectful, ungrateful, lazy, and unmotivated youth, I say...you go, boy!

Read More

"Violent" Video Games Are Not The Problem

Last week, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling in a California case which probably left irresponsible parents cringing with frustration, and video game industry executives feelings as though they’ve beaten the final boss—on the most difficult setting—of an RPG (that’s Role Playing Game for the handful of you who aren’t into video games)…without cheat codes. In the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Nine Wise Men/Women exhibited an uncustomary level of common sense (at least with this particular court lineup) and struck down as unconstitutional California’s attempt to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
In a vote of 7 to 2, the court upheld a lower court’s decision that the state’s law, which imposed a $1,000 fine on those who sell (or rent) video games deemed “violent” to minors, violated free-speech rights. Despite the varying reasons for doing so, the justices rightfully concluded, at least implicitly, that video games are neither harmful, nor do they cultivate in those of us who play them a mindset of aggressive behavior. And while there are studies which would seem to indicate otherwise, there are an equal number of counter studies which indicate the opposite.

"Fatalities" from the original Mortal Kombat video game, considered by many to be the game which spurred concern about violent video games.

Dueling “experts” aside, California’s (and other states’) attempt to “protect” children from deleterious influences was woefully misguided from the very beginning. To even entertain the notion that violent video games (or any other form of entertainment for that matter) can potentially affect individuals in a negative way ignores history itself. Generation Xers like myself grew up with the most brutal and violent of “influences” on television, in books, and on the big screen, and psychologically speaking, we’re not any mentally worse for wear. I can remember watching the Coyote mauling himself many times an episode as he tried to put the Road Runner on a dinner plate. And I can’t count the number of times a spinach-drugged Popeye beat down Bluto daily. Television Westerns, whatever Stallone and/or Schwarzenegger flick playing at the theater, or the prior week’s episode of the A-Team (Ok, that last one was a bad example) simply did not influence us to wreck havoc on people or property. And while it’s true the video games lacked the blood and gore of today’s crop of games like Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil (my personal favorites by the way), we played our share of games which put an opponent on his (or her) keister, but they failed to cause us to walk into a crowded public venue wanting to do the same thing.
Back in the day, the difference was a culture which reinforced the demarcation between reality and fantasy. We had parents who taught us discipline, both physical and emotional…a practice sorely lacking on today’s parents. Thanks to over-doting parents, kids today are emotionally weak. They have a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of duty. They become angry over the smallest inconvenience instead of being told that life little disappointments are as inevitable as the sunrise…and then are told they have “anger management issues.” Too many parents are too inept at actually rearing independent thinkers. Today’s children are very suggestive to even the most questionable of practices and influences—just look at the beltlines of today’s urban males if you don’t believe me. So if young video game players are “influenced,” its due to parents not working to be the primary influence in their children’s lives instead of their peers. Maybe if today’s parents didn’t opt to buy their children Sony Playstations and X-Box 360s with the intent to use these marginally interactive instruments as proxy baby sitters, there wouldn’t even be an issue of a violent video game’s “influence” on the psyches of children.
Society was more responsible also once upon a time. Television programming, was punctuated by object lessons as well as educational interludes such as ABC’s “Schoolhouse Rock” and CBS’s “In The News.” There was not the over-saturation of self-indulgent “reality” television programs, “entertainers” selling sex in music and videos, and misguided adults not allowing public institutions such as schools to do what’s necessary to teach rather than what someone’s ideological stance or belief is.
If anything, it is everything but violent video games which is harming children. If states like California want to be an instrument in preventing harm to children, how about crafting laws which compel more constant, consistent, and positive parenting?

Read More

Its 2010...Do You Know What Your Kids Are Smoking?

In working with at-risk teens, I find that both that their parents as well as those of us working to save them have to be more than vigilant…we have to virtually sleep with one eye open. Today’s youth seem more inclined engage their free time by pursuing questionable “pleasures,” most notably the fixation on getting high.
In regards to this to teenage fixation on pursuing chemically-induced altered states of perceptions, the methods of choice include illegally-obtained prescription medicines, “huffing” chemical inhalants, and smoking marijuana—by no means an exhaustive list. But with many institutions increasing their emphasis on drug testing and [the] increasing legal restrictions limiting access to excessive amounts of over-the-counter medicines (often used to concoct mixtures to chase cheap highs), teenagers are constantly seeking and exploring other alternatives to momentarily escaping reality.
One of these alternatives are plants and other exotic herbs that have been treated with synthetic chemicals, so that when smoked mimic both the form and function of marijuana. The way this “legal weed” works is that when rolled in smoking paper and smoked, produces a euphoric high similar to that of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the chief psychoactive chemical in real marijuana. Instead of THC, this synthetic marijuana contains a mixture of synthetic chemicals known as JWH-018, JWH-073, and/or CP-47 that act on cannabinoid receptors in the brain in much the same way that true marijuana does.
This totally legal marijuana substitute (in most states) is manufactured abroad, shipped to the states, sold mostly in local convenience stores/corner markets, and marketed as “herbal incense” in order to disguise its true purpose as a way of obtaining a marijuana-like high…without the legal ramifications. Sold under the popular brand names such as “K2,” “Kush,” “Spice,” “Mr. Nice Guy,” and a host of others, these herbal blends have dangerous, potentially deadly heath issues attached to their use. Earlier this year, an Iowa teen who had smoked K2 died after suffering a panic attack caused by its use and shooting himself (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/article_877e5512-aae0-58bc-b88b-8e3124f198dc.html).

As illustrated, smoking small amounts of the more potent synthetic marijuana can cause an increased heart rate, loss of consciousness, paranoia, hallucinations, and psychotic episodes. Regarding these health issues, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) calls these herbal plants a “drug of concern” and has moved to have these drugs placed in the same category as traditional illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Additionally, some 13 states as well as the military have banned either their sale and/or use (importation and/or use have also been banned abroad in the UK, Russia, Poland, France, and South Korea). However, in the jurisdictions that have been slow to respond—for whatever reasons—synthetic marijuana’s use continues to grow as young users take advantage of this legislative oversight (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/24/national/main7086373.shtml).
Besides the fact that legal loopholes help encourage access to this drug, the fact that it doesn’t show up as a positive reading in traditional drug screenings make it an even more attractive substitute for young people looking to get an easy and cheap high; small packets of these herbs cost between $15 to $40 dollars.
In cities and areas across the country, authorities should make themselves aware of this potentially deadly substitute for marijuana and move quickly to ban its import, sale, and use…or the federal government should speed up its efforts to ban the importation and/use of any product with these particular (or even similar) chemical makeup(s).
Given the level of talk and bragging I hear daily by teens who share stories about their particular experiences with artificial marijuana use, perhaps some enterprising future entrepreneur could create a drug screening which could detect this new drug, and make himself/herself a multimillionaire in the process…and help those of us who spend our time trying to keep young people keep their heads on straight.

Read More

A Few Items In The News…

The Mid-Term Elections

Years ago, Adolf Hitler said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth…and that truth will eventually not matter. Keep that in mind as reality has declared the mid-term elections of 2010 to now be history. And after all of the usual pre-election insanity of campaign lies, slanders, half-truths, opponent misrepresentations, and shifty campaign contribution, we have projected winners and losers.
Now that America has a divided Congress—between the now Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democrat-controlled Senate—as well as a Democratically-controlled executive branch (i.e., that’s the White House to those of you who failed Civics 101), we can expect ideological intransigence, political gridlock, party-bashing, and ultimately legislative inaction to run Washington for the foreseeable future.
Even as the landslide-victorious Republicans are preparing to take control of half of the federal government’s legislature, the presumed new Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) had already started to engage in the usual Washington political hyperbole by declaring that “there seems to be some denial on the part of the president and other Democratic leaders of the message that was sent by the American people."





Last week’s election victories on the part of the Republicans (in both national and local races across the country) were not so much as bringing the Democrats face-to-face with some presumed denial on their parts as much as it was greater organizing among the conservative rank-and-file, a more effective public relations machine, and better image-projecting. Combine this reality with the fact that Democrats were ideologically split over support for policies promoted by the White House and you get the pasting that Democrats suffered at the polls almost 2 weeks ago.
Most informed Americans already know the conservative platform of the Republican Party, so to call this election “the most historic election in over 60, 70 years” is something of a stretch of reality, and reeks of political spin…trying to make more of the elections than they were (come on…the election of the first African American president and the accompanying one-party control of the federal government during the previous election cycle doesn’t count as more “historic?” Even the Republican shift of Congress in 1994 was more meaningful historically). More to the point, its not as if the American electorate has much of a choice when it comes to party/ideological representation in Washington anyway…Brand X or Brand Y.
Taken altogether, these events harbinger what is to come for the American people…the ultimate loser in the elections of the past couple of weeks. Until either one party effectively (the key word here) controls one aspect of the legislative process, decides to work in the interests of their constituencies—us—and not instead hold allegiance to their political parties and their respective ideologies, or until both parties either learn to work together or the American people opt to create a viable third political alternative (the Tea Party totally withstanding), we can expect the same a three-ring circus in Washington in the coming term instead of functioning three branches of government.

Corporal Punishment In Schools

A high school basketball coach in Jackson, Mississippi is in legal hot water after images of him “paddling” students during a basketball practice went viral over the ‘net this week, courtesy of another student’s cell phone camera.
Coach Marlon Dorsey defended his practice of paddling basketball team members who failed “to run basketball plays correctly" as a way of trying to "save these young men from the destruction of self," according to court documents filed recently.
In further defense of his actions, Dorsey issued a statement which read,

"I paddled my students... today, some of [sic] students have lost pride in their school and in their (sic) selves. Students are disrespecting teachers, administrators and other students by stealing cell phones, leaving off campus without permission, disrupting classroom teaching time, late for class and not following dress codes by wearing the pants on their butts and house shoes to school and on-court behavior. I took it upon myself to save these young men from the destruction of self and what society has accepted and become silent to the issues our students are facing on a daily basis."

As of this writing: Dorsey is still employed with the district, but is on active suspension without pay for 28 days; students who were alleged to have been paddled still attend classes and are still playing on the boy's varsity basketball team; and a lawsuit has been filed in court naming the school district, Dorsey, and the school principal as defendants who failed to safeguard the rights of the players (http://mw.cnn.com/snarticle?c=cnnd_us&p=0&aId=20101111:mississippi.coach.whippings:1).





Having worked with young people myself for over 10 years (including currently as a counselor for at-risk teens), I not only empathize with Dorsey’s position, but support it 110%. Today’s youth are simply out of control, especially urban youth. Part of this is because we as a society have adopted an overly liberal attitude toward dealing with both their issues and their actions. We have adopted a New Age form of thinking which asserts that paddling, whippings, and other forms of “abuse” are more harmful than helpful to youth in dealing with their delinquency. But an argument can be made that removing these (and other such) sanctions as options when it comes to bringing up our children does more harm to society as a whole.
Most of us who comprise Generation X, Baby Boomers, and prior generations received such sanctions regularly in both the home and in schools (from 3rd grade through high school), and we are no worse for our experiences. In fact, it could be argued that such actions reinforced our generation’s superior social value of duty, while the absence of such actions has resulted in this current generation’s sense of entitlement.
Even if you don’t agree with bringing back corporal punishment in public schools, one thing no one can disagree with is that there was no where near as much violence, disrespect for teachers, and lack of self-respect back in my public school days as there is today with the absence of such measures. Also, people were not chomping at the bit to sue for any perceived violation of one’s “rights” back in the day as they are now…as if awarding monetary “compensation” somehow miraculously gives one back his/her dignity.
In fact, who needs Corporal Punishment? I say bring in Sergeant Slaughter!


Black Unwed Motherhood Reaches A New High

This week, the Washington Post featured a story about the extremely high—an understatement to be sure—rate of unwed motherhood among black women in America. According the both the article and the latest government figures, black single motherhood among black women is an astounding 72%, far and away shadowing the demographic group, Native Americans at 66% (“Blacks Struggle With 72% Unwed Mothers Rate,” The Washington Post.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110602362_pf.html ).

To emphasize the point, the article focused on the experience of a Houston-area OB-GYN and her low-income–serving practice. The government’s statistics closely mirrors the daily experiences of Dr. Natalie Carroll, who gives a level of personal counseling emphasizing the need for single mothers to bring stable male figures into the lives of their children…in addition to medical care she provides to expectant mothers.
For many within the black community, this fact is no surprise, although the numerical percentage is still shocking. The black community also knows all-too well the correlative outcomes that such a high rate of single-parent households tends to yield—children of unmarried mothers (of any race) “are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.”
It’s a well-know but little-discussed norm within the black community that, even when is criticized for the sociological pathology that it is by high profile figures such as entertainer Bill Cosby on the left and former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes on the right, it becomes a matter of loping off the head (s) of the bearer(s) of bad news rather than an issue to be addressed.
It’s a complex problem with equally complicated solutions. Yes, black males could learn to step up and accept more responsibility insofar as family and their children are concerned, but when the economic climate creates more impediments than opportunities, how is he supposed to become “marriage material” if he cannot even acquire gainful employment? And what woman is going to “take care of a man” (a prospective taboo among many black women)?
And what about idea of marriage as a solution to this problem? Given the almost daily reports about how many high profile couples such as entertainers—individuals of more-than-adequate financial means—are splitting up almost as soon as they get together, how is any man supposed to take the institution of marriage seriously when it seems no one else is? As a solution to the high rate of single motherhood in and of itself, marriage seems to be an outdated institution that no one takes seriously. Indeed, depending on whose numbers you buy, more than half of them will end up in divorce anyway. So there is obviously no sense of security in matrimony. More so, if it comes down to divorce, the man is far more likely to receive the short end of the stick insofar as rulings (spousal/child support, the dividing of assets, etc.) are concerned, so where is his incentive to get married?
It would seem that many aspects of the socioeconomic system in America have to change in order for facilitate an incentive for black males become more responsible, and for black women to accept them as potential marriage partners. Then again, these were non-factors for black family cohesiveness during both slavery and in the century of Jim Crow following slavery. As mentioned earlier, it’s a complicated issue.

Read More