Palin’s ‘Message: I Care’ Video
Watching Jon Stewart’s opening segment Monday night, I was struck by a powerful sense that here was someone who truly believed what he was saying, who was crafting his own words carefully and thoughtfully in an earnest effort to reach out to the millions he knew would be watching and give them something that would help them in a time of trouble, without (despite his closing quip) really concerning himself too much with what would be good for him personally.
I got an equally powerful sense while watching this next video, but it trended in pretty much the opposite direction:
Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
Maybe it’s because of the contrast between this video and videos in which Palin has actually been required to speak her own thoughts, unscripted, but I can’t watch this without being overwhelmed by the sense that here is someone reading words that others have written for her, striving to inject homey touches and heartfelt emotion that she doesn’t really feel, all in an attempt to manipulate anyone daft enough or emotionally needy enough to support her into taking her side against those big bad meanies who’ve been picking on her.
Ick. Even with the lip gloss and ex-beauty-queen looks, I find that really off-putting. I’d agree that she has a First Amendment right to say whatever ridiculous thing she wants to say. And then I, and others, have an equal right to say what we think in response. And my response in this case is: Wow. What a putz.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:07 am
‘Blood libel”… seriously? “Dueling pistols”… seriously?
Responding to concerns of overheated and toxic rhetoric is answerd with… that?
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
perhaps she should look into the meaning of the term “blood libel”
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/12/seattle-stranger-new.html
“shrill cries of imagined insults”
project much? did everyone ‘imagine’ what happened in AZ?
suddenly Joe Biden looks like a silver tongued f-ing genius
January 12th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Even GOP members are scared of Tea Baggers.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html
January 12th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
The focus on Palin by the voices on the left are an unending source of amusement to me. Here we have a purely populist politician who has NO chance of mounting a serious threat to achieving the Republican nomination for President, who draws all the heat and attention of people who, seem to focus on her because it is their certain (illogical) belief that she will BECOME the Republican nomimee.
Her base will NEVER, EVER grow beyond its core. She is a simplistic speaker (and thinker) who will be re-exposed if she has to come out from behind her social media cover and Fox News-based protection and answer policy questions beyond sloganeering. Why does the left not take the hint given by all the Conservative heavyweights when they refuse to affirm her qualifications to be President? Aren’t there better things to obsess about?
That being said, her misguided use of a target image on Giffords district was used in a very slimy political attack on her, a mere hours after the shootings, to link her specifically with the actions of this lunatic. It started in the liberal blogosphere and quickly became more mainstream. Some of the less savvy bloggers simply but Palin and the shooting together directly. The more practiced players merely discussed Palin’s map and the loon in the same sentence, while being careful to not claim a direct cause-and-effect. All the while, understanding that if they place the loon and Palin’s names together often enough, their readers will eagerly close the loop and make the connection for them.
So, I can understand her distain for the political vultures picking at the corpses for cheap political points.
The “blood libel” thing is a curious phrase to use, but Alan Dershowitz (sp?), for one, seemed to feel it was fine in its broader-used political convention.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Jonah Goldberg (sp?) thought it was ill conceived to use that term, it is so narrowly used even though it is technically correct. I think he is right, the speech was obviously prepared, a different term could have been used at this sensitive time.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
“[Palin] has NO chance of mounting a serious threat to achieving the Republican nomination for President…”
You say that with such certainty. I’d love to agree but I’m afraid it’s not a stretch at all to for her win the nomination.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:09 am
I don’t think it is a stretch for her to win the election. I think it could come down to her and Obama and neither is really qualified, she is a little more than he but not by much. I just don’t see anyone else on the political scene that is qualified and electable. I like Newt and Richardson and think they would be good presidents but they are both marginalized at this point. Of course I say this about this time before every election and someone I’ve never heard of pops up.
January 13th, 2011 at 7:23 am
It’s a stretch like Armstrong, hep cats. Hilary’s still my bet for the first female President. She’s actually a credible candidate. Palin is just a celebrity.
Sarah Palin serves the same function in the liberal mind that Marilyn Manson served in the conservative mind back in the 1990’s. The hype surrounding the Arizona shootings confirms this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYApo2d8o_A
January 13th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. He worked at a law firm for four years; served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004 and was a U.S. Senator for three years. And will have been President for four years. Not to mention his stellar educational background.
And yet you come to the conclusion that a half-term governor who was also a small town mayor for a few years is a “little more qualified”?
Is it the management of her facebook account that really impresses you? Because if it is you should see my 12 year old niece – she can update a facebook status like you wouldn’t believe. Or is it the reality show that makes her a little more qualified?
You really need to slow down on the kool-aid my friend.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Hilary has a lot of baggage too. I think she is very, very marginally more prepared than the other two. Nothing to write home about though.
NL, I think she is more qualified even with all you said, that is the problem, she isn’t qualified either. I hope someone tickles my fancy soon. I think Obama has shown he wasn’t near ready to be president.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Watching Palin squirm out from under this is pathetic. Mrs Giffords herself excoriated (gosh, too strong a word?) super Sarah for her sniper rifle gun sights graphic and RELOAD! rhetoric.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rep-giffords-criticized-sarah-palin-crosshairs-12579717
Skip to about half way through to hear the two ladies speak for themselves. One speaks with a clear call to violence (then says and it’s not a call to violence – wink!) while the other says actions have consequences.
Even Elisabeth Hasselbeck thought that was inappropriate at the time it came out.
I don’t blame super sarah any more than I blame anyone (R or D) who uses similar violent or aggressive language (or deeds). There is just a lot more of it from one side than the other. I’ve lost count of the number of times wwnj has made death threats – ooops jes some little jokes see! har har har! jes a turn of a phrase like mud hut countries er impaled at the stake or worse. har har har!
blood libel? the blood is on your hands Lady MacScreacher. I wish people would stop paying attention to this bimbo. Thankfully her gawdawful ‘reality’ tv show was cancelled after one disastrous season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D33l9KJAUY
January 13th, 2011 at 9:41 am
When speaking of the heated partisian attacks mere hours after the event, don’t forget that it was the Sherrif (?), who has few such political interests, who came out strongly against violent political rhetoric in the first (&2nd &3 rd, etc. ?) statements after the attack. To wit – this was not some scheme dreamed up by the Democrats to capitalize on the killings.
The initiation of and widespread agreement with the theme tells us that such rhetoric is a a simmering problem that most rational people think needs to be ended.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Rush’s Tucson billboard FAIL:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/237055/RUSHLIMBAUGH.jpg
January 13th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
NL,
I’m not sure how exactly that qualifies as a fail. Is it because Rush has set himself up as if he’s a sniper’s spotter to clearly identify targets with his public messaging?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
This isn’t a dig but you haven’t read much about the sheriff have you?
January 13th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
It’s probably because our police don’t have party affiliation up here.
Which, by the way, I find very strange. (police having party affiliation)
knarly, are you being sarcastic? In case you arne’t, to answer your question, it’s a massvie FAIL because that billboard is stting a few blocks from where that idiot shot killed and wounded people.
I know it’s just a coincidence, but still, epic failure.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
NL, no, it’s just that I’m not paying attention.
shcb, You are correct. Is he a communist? Whatever. Just please don’t shoot me.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
“I wish people would stop paying attention to this bimbo.”
Let me fix your sentence for you enkidu: “I wish the media would stop paying attention to this bimbo.”
Anyone who really thinks Palin has a good shot at being the Republican nominee is frankly just not thinking very clearly about it. There are plenty of people who may like her as a person and agree with much of her broad rethoric, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked if they think she should be the Republican challenger to Obama, people start looking down and shuffling their feet!
Someone has to give me a likely scenario where she will attract more than 20%-25% support from her base Republican voters once she hits the campaign trail and has to slug it out with challengers and be more conversant in issues and policy direction, while taking hits on her words in this new, less-protected environment.
Good luck.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Knarly, he is just very outspoken, if I weren’t on the other side of the issues I would probably like him. He is just one of those guys that says things too loud too early, he was blaming this on the “toxic” atmosphere before the ambulances got to the hospital, not a good thing for a head law enforcement officer.
I don’t know Craig, she makes one or two great speeches at just the right time and the guy or two that are ahead of her stub their toes… I would never have given Obama a chance either, well maybe a little but I thought he was in at least 5th place at this time a few years ago.
Who are your two favorites at this point?
January 13th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Knarly…… DUCK
January 13th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
shcb,
On the contrary, I prefer law enforcement officers who speak their mind.
If their words are within the societies norm, great, if it is outrageous or politically stupid then the law enforcement officer pays the price of censure, firing or ostracism. It’s like capitalism, except with ideas not money. It seems like this law enforcement officer has struck a decent chord with the populace of America. No doubt he’ll get a talking to from his superiors about his role, but he likely got to his position for having the balls to see through the bullshit (i.e. eyeballs not testicles, I don’t mix metaphors much.)
There is no doubt Sarah Palin / Marco Rubio in 2012 (despite Rubio’s denials).
Furthermore, in 2013 Palin will be the first president to give birth in the oval office.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
shcb… TOPLESS!
http://www.lucididea.wordpress.com/
January 14th, 2011 at 5:25 am
That’s good! Seriously I read an article once about dumb hunters, a couple wildlife officers in Wyoming had set up a plywood decoy and draped an antelope skin over it, they sat on the hill and watched a guy crawl on his belly for almost an hour before he popped up and put an arrow into the plywood, boiiiing. They said they were laughing so hard he almost got away.
I’m the guy that put my heart and soul into Ross Perot so my picks aren’t known to be that great. I’m picking Tom Tancredo for the next pres, he’s a lock.
January 14th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Yea, Tancredo seems decent, but it’s hard to take seriously people who still believe in fairy tales:
“In a May 3, 2007 debate among the ten candidates for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, Tancredo was one of three who raised their hands when asked if anyone did not believe in the theory (sic) of evolution.”
January 14th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Rubio may play well in FL (I haven’t looked at his numbers w hispanic voters) but he’ll draw far less in the big states like CA, IL, NY or even TX (where expat Cubanos aren’t the base). With whatsername at the top of the ticket it’ll make for some hilarious Daily Shows, but a resounding defeat for Tea Bircherism.
Tom Tancredo? the virulently anti-immigrant guy?
Oh he’d do great with those hispanic voters!
Craig: 20% of Americans think the sun goes around the earth… that adam and eve rode dinosaurs to church… that the earth is only a few thousand years old (created by Zeus or Wotan or a giant turtle, take your pick, lots more to choose from).. or Obama is a secret muslim commie usurper born in Kenya to Malcom X and Jane Fonda. That is your base, not mine.
Just remember this http://harpers.org/archive/2010/07/0083023 is your state or country on Tea Bircherism
January 14th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
So Enk, who’s on the 2012 Republican Pres/VP ticket? (“Who cares?” is not a valid answer.)
January 14th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Back to the “unhinged” shooter in Arizona, we have the solution:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/loughner-more-than-a-deranged-individual-he-is-one-of-millions
Who agrees with that? And if you don’t agree I’m betting you don’t understand.
January 15th, 2011 at 6:49 am
Not for me, give them a good slap on the behind when they are three when they act up, in public if needed. Don’t toss the parents in jail, give them a standing ovation. Twenty years ago these “experts” told us it was wrong to be a parent, we should be a friend to our kids, don’t beat them, sign a contract with them, it was all bullshit. So when it failed they drugged the kids, since by middle school it was too late. But at least the drugs could be stopped, now she wants the give them a vaccine to make them zombies forever. Did you notice how she changed what Armey said?
Shameless
January 15th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I win my bet.
You really hate science don’t you. It makes you so mad you can’t read or think straight. Proabably was the nun’s heavy handed tactics on you.
What makes you think that these “behavioural vaccines ” will make them zombies forever?
Here’s a hint, this time try to get past your anger, fear, and other emotions and actually think:
BTW, what makes you think Dr. Dennis Embry is a “she”?
p.s. What ‘experts’ told you twenty years ago “it was wrong to be a parent”? Twenty years ago many “experts” told you their theories. Were these theories peer reviewed established scientific findings? Not quite, yet educators embraced the theories and effectively launched a major social science experiment with your kids. Embracing scientific theories before fully proven is not very smart, but it is smarter than embracing the opposite of peer reviewed established longstanding scientific findings. That some of the ideas of twenty years ago were wrong, was, thankfully, counterbalanced by the parts that were right.
For instance, corporal punishment does harm. People who advocate “a good slap across the backside” are confusing the short term benefits (immediate behaviour modification) with the long term effects (e.g. erosion of trust, fear, and latent aggression that shows up as depression later on or in some cases as overt aggression later on.) That some kids turn out “okay” after being raised by a heavy hand is despite. not because of the pain that was inflicted upon them by their parents or other caretakers. The science on that is quite settled, for those that are not too angry to listen.
January 15th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
*correction: … erosion of trust, INCREASED LEVELS OF fear and DEVELOPMENT OF latent aggression…
Maybe I should make it easier on you, so here is another hint: Dr. Embry is not advocating any drugs or injections, his comments about them in the article are to illustrate that current methods are not working.
Let me know if you can figure this out.
January 15th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I don’t know, a good spanking every now and then worked good for me, worked good for my kids and seems to be working good for the grandkids. I couldn’t tell if he was actually talking about a bonified vaccine or some psycho babble. I did find in a quick search there are vaccines that inject amino acids and such to change behavior.
You say it is some proven fact that whacking a kid harms them. Probably a liberal PHD that decided that, probably doesn’t have kids either, sorry but I’ll stick with what I know is right, it is hard to be a parent and you have to be tough every now and then. Reagan said something like “the solution to most problems isn’t complicated it is just hard.”
January 15th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Whacking kids is like drinking and driving was 30 years ago. Regardless of how you rationalize it, it is stupid.
So you STILL do not understand, you went and Googled some story about injecting amino acids? wtf.
Since the Nun’s apparently taught you little except to fear authority, here’s how to read such articles. When there is a footnote, as in this from Dr. Embry’s article:
…you can go to the end of the article and read the footnote, as in this:
If that doesn’t give you a clue, then go ahead and look at the source, as in Google: “Embry DD. The Good Behavior Game”; if you do that then the first item Google provides is a research study on the National Institute of Health’s website. So read the abstract and then you might know just barely enough about the issue to bother other people with your comments. Here is the abstract:
Abstract
A “behavioral vaccine” provides an inoculation against morbidity or mortality, impacting physical, mental, or behavior disorders. An historical example of a behavioral vaccine is antiseptic hand washing to reduce childbed fever. In current society, issues with high levels of morbidity, such as substance abuse, delinquency, youth violence, and other behavioral disorders (multiproblems), cry out for a low-cost, widespread strategy as simple as antiseptic hand washing. Congruent research findings from longitudinal studies, twin studies, and other investigations suggest that a possibility might exist for a behavioral vaccine for multiproblem behavior. A simple behavioral strategy called the Good Behavior Game (GBG), which reinforces inhibition in a group context of elementary school, has substantial previous research to consider its use as a behavioral vaccine. The GBG is not a curriculum but rather a simple behavioral procedure from applied behavior analysis. Approximately 20 independent replications of the GBG across different grade levels, different types of students, different settings, and some with long-term follow-up show strong, consistent impact on impulsive, disruptive behaviors of children and teens as well as reductions in substance use or serious antisocial behaviors. The GBG, named as a “best practice” for the prevention of substance abuse or violent behavior by a number of federal agencies, is unique because it is the only practice implemented by individual teachers that is documented to have long-term effects. Presently, the GBG is only used in a small number of settings. However, near universal use of the GBG, in major political jurisdictions during the elementary years, could substantially reduce the incidence of substance use, antisocial behavior, and other adverse developmental or social consequences at a very modest cost, with very positive cost-effectiveness ratios.
January 15th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
so what is it? what do they do?
January 15th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Oh no, my precious bodily fluids.
Oh, and I can’t wait for more gems from Reagan. Perhaps we can use space lasers to modify the behavior of our children.
January 15th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Ok, I read a little about it, eh, no biggy, give the kids trinkets and hugs if they do good, softly reprimand if they do bad. Been there done that, did the Prozac thing too, they don’t work. A swift kick in the ass did the trick so well the next two kids didn’t need it. Moving to a country school where they didn’t believe in that bullshit helped too. Keep the kids busy and demand excellence, works every time.
My daughter, brother in law and his sister in law are all about the same age, all have kids the same age. My daughter is raising her kids the right way, the other two families are raising theirs like is described in the game, my daughter has good kids the other two have brats. A PHD doesn’t make you right, it doesn’t make you smart, it just makes you a doctor.
January 15th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Smith, I don’t understand your comments.
shcb, FYI –
The whole point of the article is that there is a simple game you can play with 5 & 6 year olds that has shown remarkable results.
Scientifically demonstarted remarkable results.
vs.
shcb has some anecdotes about a few relatives who git hit upside the head and don’t get caught being bad agin and some anecdotes ’bout other kin with soft hearted parents who run round like little hitlers.
At least we know now the absolute disdain shcb has for science. That could hav saved JBC a whole lot of time instead of trying to figure out what assumptions scb was using in assessing global warming.
It is plain now that shcb simply does not trust science, he prefers the bumbling medieval methods of choosing what to do. wwnj = stupid.
January 16th, 2011 at 6:21 am
I don’t have a distain for science, I love science, I respect science, but I also expect results. Just because something is done in the scientific method doesn’t mean it will work. All education does is accelerate the discovery process but if the results are flawed they are still flawed whether those results took a lifetime for one to achieve or a semester. There are some aspects of the paper I read on this subject that are ok to one degree or another but most of it is liberal feel good garbage. It is easier to be nice to kids and pass them on to the next and next teacher until one of them has to put a growing number of kids on mind altering drugs than to kick their asses and expect great things from them, knowing that a few are just going to be losers.
We took a big chance moving our kids to the country, over Christmas both our girls that grew up right said that they owe all their success to that move and our becoming parents and not friends. The youngest is on a path to become (I know) a PHD in clinical psychology. She said that all her professors talk about how well she writes, the middle daughter who was in middle school when we moved here said she had a hard time catching up with her writing when we moved here, there were concepts in writing the other kids just understood that she hadn’t even been exposed to.
The experts that came up with this idea that was contrary to thousands of years of successful parenting were and are just wrong.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Uh, yea right.
Here’s the thing. Social science behavioural studies is comprised of more than the one paper you sort of read on the subject. It seems like you’re changing the subject.
The point of Dr. Embry’s article is that one simple game encorporated into classrooms for 5 & 6 year olds makes a huge difference in learning and behavioural outcomes for years. Statistically significant differences, not anecdotal heresay like yours. Added to that, positive parenting amplifies and extends the benefits. (Maybe that is also regardless of whether or not their parents also whack them occasionally.)
What’s amazing to me is how quickly you misinterpreted everything in order to defend your right to beat your kids. Wow.
Also curious, what do you mean that only two of your kids grew up right?
Is that a 2/3 success rate or a 2/4 or what? & How does that compares with the success rates of the kids that weren’t beaten or that were raised in keepign with the best science on behavioural modelling?
January 16th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
I have 3 girls, we almost lost the oldest, she was starting to get into drugs, running away etc because we bought into this kind of nonsense. At one point I came home unexpected at lunch to find her walking down the street skipping school, I put her against the wall and told her I would break her nose if she ever did that again because my only responsibility was to see she was educated and safe and I couldn’t do either the way she was acting. I became a parent that day. I also told her that if I hit her at her age I was going to jail so I was going to make it worth the effort. That was the last time she did anything wrong, she buckled down at a charter school and graduated with quite a bit of her first year of college finished. Our mistakes cost her a normal high school experience however. The other two kids never did anything like the older one did because of the legend of shcb.
There needs to be a balance, you can’t beat your kid to being a productive citizen but you can’t coddle them to that end either. One of the problems is when schools and parents are on such diverse paths it confuses some kids and others prey on the situation. Kids are human, they take advantage of any situation. You have seen it in divorce case where the parent are fighting and the kids play the two against each other to their own advantage, that is what happens in many school districts, the kids are coddled in school as per the recommendation of people like this doctor and then they are parented at home and they play the two against each other, suddenly the brats are the fault of the opposing party.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I understand your thinking, some of your sayings have merit but some do not, and understand that such thought processes are all too common by people rationalizing what they have done. Cause and effect is tricky thing to establish. The legend of shcb probably has a different meaning to your kids than it does to you, the lesson they probably took from it is to be very careful not to get caught – as you say, kids are smart.
Okay, back to the subject at hand. Show me where this doctor suggests that kids should be coddled.
Oh, but you didn’t say that, did you? You said “People like this doctor…” Who exactly do you mean that, oh never mind, you are just changing the subject again. Crating another straw man as you so often do.
The subject is this Dr. Embry’s recommendations based on peer reviewed science, i.e multiple long term studies on many many kids, not just your 3 anomalies.
I am not interested in your obscure reference to unnamed people who told you and your kids teachers something once upon a time. I have an idea that the theories you followed back then were not backed by rigourous science but rather they were more often than not the musings of a learned QUACK or two who smoked too much pot.
But I do have a sense of what Dr. Embry is saying and to what extent the science backs him up. To his credit he is very open about that.
So, show me where Dr. Embry says that kids need to be coddled.
My guess is that Dr. Embry would generally support your approach to the oldest in showing how much you cared and that you were the rock in her world that she could not break, and would also support your “positive” move to the country. He might be against hitting kids, but I do not think he is making an issue out of that, it seems to me he is putting out other options that are more effective.
That you do not understand this after all of my explanatory posts after the link to the first article does not reflect well on you.
At least you have stopped ranting about injections!
January 17th, 2011 at 5:28 am
I suppose coddling is in the eye of the beholder, I don’t have the PDF of the program description on this computer so you’ll have to trust me on this, they said that punishment was a gentle reminder the kid had done something wrong, works on some kids maybe even a large percentage, but not close to all. Part of our issue is that I am more referring to a 40 page PDF that you haven’t read. Truthfully we probably aren’t that far apart, and the PDF did have some good points, they started out trashing Sigmund Freud, saying his methods don’t really work when trying to develop a program like this. They also made a good point that there needs to be consistency, if the kid talks out of turn three times before he is reprimanded, keep it at three times until he figures that pattern out then mix it up. They went into detail of how to do that and it made sense. Point is I’m not po poing everything here and I’m sure he did a fine job of research but I think his and my objectives are different. I want to raise kids so as many as possible are productive citizens. I think he wants to raise kids without harsh punishment so as many as possible are productive citizens. I think his failure rate is going to be higher than mine because he has taken one tool off the table, harsh punishment. The problem is that the failure doesn’t show up until the kid is too old to fix unless you are willing to go to extreme measures like I did, or drug the kids, which of course he then complains about. Did namby pamby parenting cause the increase in out of control kids or was it helped by both parents working, the internet, tv… they probably all are factors, but the one we can control is parenting.
This program was also tailored mostly for teachers, nothing wrong with that but it is a limiting factor. I understand everything you are saying I just don’t agree with some of it, respectfully. When I or anyone for that matter, say someone is “wrong” many times it is because we have different objectives.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:30 am
By the way I don’t think this discussion has anything to do with Tuscon
January 17th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Anything to do with Tucson? Of course you would conclude that.
I am not so sure, and do not think anyone could ever tell for sure whether it is or is not connected. Loughner could be a bad seed raised in a bad environment that no amount of sublte behavioural programming would have ever overcome. Or he might have been an okay kid that was warped by forces in his life that he could have easily overcome if only he’d had some positive role models and effective social conditioning such as Dr. Embry suggests. Or something in the middle. I don’t see how that could ever be determined.
But your conviction that there is no connection is pure wishful thinking, illustrative of your positions on most things.
January 17th, 2011 at 10:33 am
With the exception of the last one all fair points. I think I meant that our discussion had traveled past much to do with Tuscon but you made good points none the less.
January 17th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Yes, that last point was an opinion, but I suspect it’s shared widely here.
Your points were good too, but I still feel you are arguing about what you think is for you and your kin, wheras the article sipmly tries to explain that what’s being done now (expensive corrective mediation via drugs) is not providing effective results relative to some simple preventative measures. That does not necessarily mean stop what’s being done now, e.g. whacking kids or giving them ritalin and other drugs, but siply says: why not try adding a simple low cost, no risk, preventative measure into the mix, such as The Good Behaviour Game?
That you put up so much opposition to the article’s suggestion on this (and similar things) was surprising and sort of weird.
January 17th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
My point is they have been doing this Good Behavior Game for the last 30 years and it is what has produced the expensive correction via drugs. The Good Behavior Game may be a new name for an old strategy but it has been around for the last 30 or 40 years, about the timeframe he is complaining we have had a problem.
January 17th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
The problem here is you don’t understand enough of the history of this issue to realize that what sounds like a good idea is just a rehash of what caused the problem in the first place. That is why this upsets me so. I thought it sounded like a good idea 30 years ago too, and it bit me in the ass. It was so much kinder and gentler that the way my parents had raised me, I was going to be a so much better parent because the good experts were giving me a better way to do things, the old folks rolled their eyes just like I’m doing now. We have raised kids for thousands of years one way because it worked.
January 17th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Conversation over, I am wasting my time in wwnj land:
1. Obviously you don’t understand a thing about statistics as applied to social sciences.
2. You’ve inserted so much of your prejudices that you have no idea what the article or the “game” is about, you assume it is substitutive and cannot conceive that it may well be supplemental, complementary or otherwise non-threatening to your god-given right to beat your kids or threaten them however you may see fit.
January 17th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
You’re so funny, I don’t know anything about research or statistics? I’m probably the only one on this site that uses them on a daily basis. Do you read anything I say? Or do you not understand, ask, I’ll explain. I’m sure his research was well done and complete, I’ll also guess he was starting off with criteria I wouldn’t agree with, nothing more. Look, by the time he started his work giving swats to kids in school was not cool so his mission was to school kids the best way possible if you can’t punish them in a meaningful way. He did the best he could, and the ones that he loses get drugs, no problem.
January 17th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
By the way, the reason I am so sure of what I am talking about is because I have read the 38 page document your 10 or 12 paragraph misquoting article is referring to, twice.