Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (54656)	1/25/2007 6:12:43 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Oh the hypocrisy of the big gov't nanny state libs. They want to force their left wing socio-economic policies down your throat by force of law, but they wail about keeping the gov't out of the bedroom (and barn) so they can be free to mount their stallions & other assorted farm animals. **** Some people just need to get spanked By Jennifer Roback Morse Townhall.com Columnist Wednesday, January 24, 2007 A childless legislator here in California (where else?) has proposed a legislative ban on spanking. Sally Lieber, Democrat (naturally) from Mountain View, which is in Northern California (why am I not surprised?) believes this is a proper function of state government. According to the San Jose Mercury News, “The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ‘any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.’ Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.” The people of California are understandably outraged at this outrageous assault on parental authority. But there is an even better reason to be outraged: banning spanking is not good for kids. Child rearing experts generally do not agree with a ban on spanking. The "two-swat spank" has been extensively studied. Two swats on a covered bottom do not constitute child abuse, and in fact, can be an important adjunct to reasoning in disciplining a child. The Murky News (as the locals call it: actually, it isn't a bad paper, as MSM outlets go) interviewed one of the leading scholars of corporal punishment, Dr. Robert Larzelere. “Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it's used sparingly and doesn't escalate to abuse. “If it's used in a limited way,' the Oklahoma State University professor said, “it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.' He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn't be spanked at all, because they can't understand why it's happening. As for Lieber's proposal, the professor said: ``I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it's a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn't any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.' This is a man of good sense. I happen to have an article by Dr. Larzelere and some co-authors in my filing cabinet. It compares of a variety of disciplinary strategies: reasoning, and two types of punishment, non-corporal punishment, such as time-out, and non-abusive corporal punishment. He concludes that parents should try reasoning with a child first. If “that tactic does not receive appropriate compliance, then parents should back up the initial tactic with a slightly more aversive tactic (e.g. non-corporal punishment such as time-out). Only for continued defiant noncompliance should a parent resort to nonabusive corporal punishment as back up .... (Other authors) have shown that a back-up such as a two-swat spank is necessary to make time-out effective with the most non-compliant preschoolers.” In other words, if you are dealing with a sweet, even-tempered child who wants to please, you can reason with them and they will comply. But there are some little stinkers who need something a little firmer. When Dr. Larzelere wrote the above article, his affiliation was listed as "Boys Town." Presumably, he observed some troubled kids during his time there. In my experience as a foster parent, I too, observed some troubled kids. There are indeed kids who will not comply with adult instructions, no matter how nicely you talk to them. (Parents who talk too much have been studied too. The experts call them "natterers.") The presumption that spanking is always and everywhere a form of child abuse assumes that the harm the child endures in the spanking is more serious than the harm he endures by being allowed to continue in his defiance. Failing to set limits on a child’s behavior is itself a form of child abuse. Going through childhood undisciplined is not in any child’s interest. The essence of Sally Lieber's proposal is that otherwise competent parents will be presumed abusive if they swat their children. The parents can be put in prison for a year. The kids will be put into the already overcrowded and ineffective foster care system. The parents of difficult children will be the most likely to run afoul of these rules. Being in foster care is certainly a more traumatic experience than being swatted on the bottom. All because some adults pretend they can’t tell the difference between a swat and child abuse. Perhaps the voters will give Assemblywoman Lieber a time-out until she calms down. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love In A Hook-up World. townhall.com just_need_to_get_spanked

To: Sully- who wrote (54656)	1/25/2007 10:14:48 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 90947

If memory serves me, the first person(white guy) sentence to death in Mass. was a caught doing a chicken (or cow, you get my drift) So Mass. started this 'progressive ' stuff early.

To: Sully- who wrote (54656)	1/25/2007 9:00:40 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 90947

Followup on the cultural differences on sexuality: Islamic Teachings on sex with infants and animals BEASTIALITY BAYBAY! Apparently Hollywood is on the same page. Rush has it here (subscriber). More here. In a word .....ew. From Park City, Utah, this is where the Sundance Film Festival is taking place. Among the many exhibits: "'Zoo' is a documentary about what director Robinson Devor accurately characterizes as 'the last taboo, on the boundary of something comprehensible.' But remarkably, an elegant, eerily lyrical film has resulted." This is in the LA Times, by the way. "'Zoo,' premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director ... and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals. Not graphic in the least, this strange and strangely beautiful film combines audio interviews ... with elegiac visual re-creations intended to conjure up the mood and spirit of situations. The director himself puts it best: 'I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it.'" Islam agrees. Khomeini's Teachings on sex with infants and animals here hat tip Michael Islamic Teachings on sex with infants: "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister." The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom" Islamic Teachings on sex with animals: "The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold." Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city? "If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it." Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and burned. What an Islamic justice towards animals? Where are the animal rights group? "It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into other foods their consumption is not forbidden." "If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary." Editor's note: It does not say who should have ablution: the animal or the man? "A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine." From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh". More here Posted by Pamela Geller Oshry on Thursday, January 25, 2007 From Atlas Shrugs blog