On 18 Jan 2005 16:06:30 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

As far as humanitarian horrors, last week's news reported that in New
Jersey, kids charged with minor offenses are often placed in maximum
security juvenile prisons while being "processed". Many end up so
traumatized that they're unable to function normally in society. Onto the
bombing list with New Jersey.


That's called "scared straight". It works.

Dave

It's called anal rape and sodomy.

"Scared straight" is when you take convicts into schoolhouses, etc, and have
them describe the horrors of prison life to the kids.

Witnessing the horrors first hand is a bit more influential than
glazing over as someone talks about them.


It has nothing to do with
throwing *accused* juvenile offenders in with convicted, sex-starved, deviant
felons.


Yes, that's a bit extreme. But often by locking up (Supervised of
course) juvie-criminal-wannabees, you can often give them a taste of
what they can expect "on the inside". That is really the definition of
"scared straight". There have been places that have tried this. I'll
have to dig around and see if I can remember where....

Dave

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:48:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
As far as humanitarian horrors, last week's news reported that in New
Jersey, kids charged with minor offenses are often placed in maximum
security juvenile prisons while being "processed". Many end up so
traumatized that they're unable to function normally in society. Onto
the
bombing list with New Jersey.


That's called "scared straight". It works.

Dave

It's called anal rape and sodomy.

"Scared straight" is when you take convicts into schoolhouses, etc, and
have
them describe the horrors of prison life to the kids. It has nothing to do
with
throwing *accused* juvenile offenders in with convicted, sex-starved,
deviant
felons.

I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at home.

Doug.

You've crossed the line.


Dave

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:57:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at
home.

You think he's the willing victim?

That's not very nice comments guys! Give the poor fellow a break. He may
not be an intellectual star but I think he is an OK person.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



I think he's an OK person too, Jim. But, I also know he's at least partially
influenced by a tradition that promotes rules to live by such as "Spare the
rod and spoil the child".

Can you tell me (without resorting to personal insults) just why that
practice is not the best course of action?

It's no coincidence that in the last generation or so of "Dr.
Spock-like" liberal upbringing where a child's need to "express
themselves" is paramount, and that maintaining their self esteem at
all costs is more important than what they do to earn it, that we have
had more trouble than ever with youth violence and underachievers.

The people I know who ran roughshod over their children have, in the
vast majority of cases, turned out much more socially adjusted kids,
who respect the rules of society, and have much less neuroses, and
other social "issues". They are also more likely to pursue higher
education and more productive careers. Those kids who were raised with
"hands off" parents, ended up, if not in the criminal justice system,
they are now working in low pay jobs, with little self respect, and
are more likely to vote for a democrat.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:43:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:34:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:45:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
om...

Dead is dead. Doesn't matter whether your head's cut off, or a
..223
round
slices open an artery in your leg and you watch yourself bleed
to
death.
Our
methods are no more civilized than theirs.

We don't televise our combat killing. In fact we don't kidnap
innocent
non-combatents and execute them as terrorist propaganda.

No. We stick them in a Cuban prison for 3 years and refuse to
let them
communicate with the outside world.

Much less brutal.

Dave


It's kidnapping.

Not if the person is an enemy of the state.

Dave


If they cannot communicate outside the prison, how do YOU know
they're
enemies of the state?

Because our government said so.

Damned right! And by golly, we KNOW that we must goose-step to the
furor Bush.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:57:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at
home.

You think he's the willing victim?

That's not very nice comments guys! Give the poor fellow a break. He
may
not be an intellectual star but I think he is an OK person.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



I think he's an OK person too, Jim. But, I also know he's at least
partially
influenced by a tradition that promotes rules to live by such as "Spare
the
rod and spoil the child".

Can you tell me (without resorting to personal insults) just why that
practice is not the best course of action?

It's no coincidence that in the last generation or so of "Dr.
Spock-like" liberal upbringing where a child's need to "express
themselves" is paramount, and that maintaining their self esteem at
all costs is more important than what they do to earn it, that we have
had more trouble than ever with youth violence and underachievers.

The people I know who ran roughshod over their children have, in the
vast majority of cases, turned out much more socially adjusted kids,
who respect the rules of society, and have much less neuroses, and
other social "issues". They are also more likely to pursue higher
education and more productive careers. Those kids who were raised with
"hands off" parents, ended up, if not in the criminal justice system,
they are now working in low pay jobs, with little self respect, and
are more likely to vote for a democrat.

Dave

1) Your last paragraph describes only the people you choose to focus on.
Other than that, you have absolutely no information that allows you to
generalize outside of that small sample.

2) In the next to last paragraph, you say "last generation". For the
generation or two before that, you have no way in hell of knowing how many
parents smacked their children around and how many didn't. You simply WANT
to believe in some mythical "good ole days".

3) On a 1 to 10 "offense scale", a kid should have to reach a 9-1/2 before
he/she gets wailed on. If a parent lets loose for anything less than that,
he's a lazy sack of **** who doesn't know how to solve problems in an
assertive way that commands respect.

Doug Kanter wrote:
You know what's so pathetic about this subject? It was obvious to any
thinking person that troops would have to be moved from one campaign to the
other. If Bush a real leader, he wouldn't have waited until the press was
nipping at his heels to discuss this subject. No. He would've been proactive
and told the country what was going on up front, and explained the reasoning
behind it.

Doesn't matter. Even when it became glaringly obvious that George Bush
Jr doesn't have a clue, and cannot justify *any* of "his" policies and
actions in office, and the damage done by his administration is also
made glaringly obvious, he still won the election. After all, it's a
popularity contest and President Bush is a "likeable guy."



... If people are going to receive bad news, they'd rather get it
with an explanation, I think. It shows that the bearer of the news trusts
and respects their intelligence.


But in this case, 51% of the people who voted didn't have any
intelligence. Oh well.


At least that's how I would do things if were king.


You didn't pick your parents right, that's all.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Doug Kanter wrote:
You know what's so pathetic about this subject? It was obvious to any
thinking person that troops would have to be moved from one campaign to
the other. If Bush a real leader, he wouldn't have waited until the press
was nipping at his heels to discuss this subject. No. He would've been
proactive and told the country what was going on up front, and explained
the reasoning behind it.

Doesn't matter. Even when it became glaringly obvious that George Bush Jr
doesn't have a clue, and cannot justify *any* of "his" policies and
actions in office, and the damage done by his administration is also made
glaringly obvious, he still won the election. After all, it's a popularity
contest and President Bush is a "likeable guy."

After his first election, I heard a news reporter on the radio, interviewing
young people around Columbia University, if I recall. She was wondering who
they voted for, and why. I think the theme of the story was how politically
astute the new crop of voters were. One female student responded "I voted
for Bush cause...like....they both...like seemed the same to be, but he has
cute ears".

puke

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:36:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:48:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
As far as humanitarian horrors, last week's news reported that in New
Jersey, kids charged with minor offenses are often placed in maximum
security juvenile prisons while being "processed". Many end up so
traumatized that they're unable to function normally in society. Onto
the
bombing list with New Jersey.


That's called "scared straight". It works.

Dave

It's called anal rape and sodomy.

"Scared straight" is when you take convicts into schoolhouses, etc, and
have
them describe the horrors of prison life to the kids. It has nothing to
do
with
throwing *accused* juvenile offenders in with convicted, sex-starved,
deviant
felons.

I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at home.

Doug.

You've crossed the line.


Dave

Well, in yesterday's message, you seem to be edging toward saying it's OK
for a first time 13 year old shoplifter to be locked up with a violent felon
who will have his way with the kid. If it's OK for someone else's kid, then
logically, it must be OK for yours, too. That conclusion is supported by
what you said in yet another message, where you say it's OK to "run
roughshod" over your kids.

Make up your mind.

A simple apology for your uncalled for extreme allegation would be
what a real man would do.


Dave

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:33:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

It's no coincidence that in the last generation or so of "Dr.
Spock-like" liberal upbringing where a child's need to "express
themselves" is paramount, and that maintaining their self esteem at
all costs is more important than what they do to earn it, that we have
had more trouble than ever with youth violence and underachievers.

The people I know who ran roughshod over their children have, in the
vast majority of cases, turned out much more socially adjusted kids,
who respect the rules of society, and have much less neuroses, and
other social "issues". They are also more likely to pursue higher
education and more productive careers. Those kids who were raised with
"hands off" parents, ended up, if not in the criminal justice system,
they are now working in low pay jobs, with little self respect, and
are more likely to vote for a democrat.

Dave

1) Your last paragraph describes only the people you choose to focus on.
Other than that, you have absolutely no information that allows you to
generalize outside of that small sample.

There's no reason to believe that there would be much difference in
other samplings. As I get older and talk with more people, I am still
told similar stories, from other people in my generation. I have no
reason to believe that my informal survey is not reflective of
reality.

I also have the incidents of school shootings, and school violence in
general, which has been on an increase since I was in school. In my
old high school, when I went there, the worst we ever had to deal with
was an occasional fist fight after school. Now, my old high school has
metal detectors and armed security people in the school.

This can be directly attributed to lackluster parental influence in
the child's discipline. Two working parents and day care child rearing
is probably the root of the problem.


2) In the next to last paragraph, you say "last generation". For the
generation or two before that, you have no way in hell of knowing how many
parents smacked their children around and how many didn't. You simply WANT
to believe in some mythical "good ole days".

I know how I, and most of my friends and other peers were raised. Our
parents demanded to know each and everything we did, where we went,
how long we would be gone, who we were with, numbers where we could be
reached at etc. We were given strict "be home by" times. The
neighborhood parents all kept an eye on the comings and goings of all
the neighborhood kids, and if they saw something "suspicious", it was
reported to the proper parent. If any of us was "out of line", we were
punished for it. I went to bed without dinner on more than a few
occasions before I wised up. When the teachers requested a conference,
the parents listened to the teacher, and took the corrective measures
to deal with their kids. They didn't become defensive and insist that
"their child couldn't possibly do that", and blame the teacher for the
issue.

Like I told you in another thread Doug, I have a fantastic memory for
what happened many years ago. I not only remember such trivial things
as my 7th grade locker combination, I also remember most of my "bad"
deeds and which punishments affected me the most. I can therefore
apply the same techniques to my kid.

My mother, not one to ever take back a punishment, once told me that
if she ever caught me smoking, that she would not sign for my driver's
license or learner's permit. From past experience, I had no reason to
believe that she was not dead serious, and I never took the chance.
Driving a car meant much more to me than looking "cool" while hanging
around with the kids who were smoking.

I had strict upbringing. It was not all "getting smacked around". But
my parents were quick to come down on bad behavior, and they followed
through for the duration, which means that if I was grounded for a
week, I didn't go out until the week was over. There was no
bargaining. Whining about it would only add more time to the
punishment. That's probably why I used to read a lot when I was kid.
There was not much else to do when confined to your room.

I learned the rule of law, and moral conduct as a result. This is
what's lacking in much of today's child rearing.


3) On a 1 to 10 "offense scale", a kid should have to reach a 9-1/2 before
he/she gets wailed on. If a parent lets loose for anything less than that,
he's a lazy sack of **** who doesn't know how to solve problems in an
assertive way that commands respect.

"Strict" parenting does not mean "wailing" on the kid for every thing
they do. Privilege deprivation is usually more effective.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


3) On a 1 to 10 "offense scale", a kid should have to reach a 9-1/2 before
he/she gets wailed on. If a parent lets loose for anything less than that,
he's a lazy sack of **** who doesn't know how to solve problems in an
assertive way that commands respect.

"Strict" parenting does not mean "wailing" on the kid for every thing
they do. Privilege deprivation is usually more effective.

Dave


YOU used the term "run roughshod over kids". I interpret that as wailing on
them. The other things you describe - wanting to know where kids are going,
who they're with, when they'll be home - those things don't fall under that
heading. Those things are normal, for me at least. My son's as rebellious as
any 15 year old, but I've always been able to communicate with him in a way
that eliminates anything worse than the occasional need to raise my voice so
he knows something's serious.