Study shows that one third of American kids are out of control

According to a recent study, about one third of parents polled don’t believe their method of disciplining their children is working. The most commonly used method of disciple was putting the child in timeout (45%) and the least common was spanking (8%). And they wonder why their children are out of control? As the Bible says, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

Reuters reports:

About one in three parents in the United States and Canada do not think their methods of disciplining their children work well, according to a U.S. study.

Dr. Shari Barkin, chief of general pediatrics at Tennessee's Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt found 31 percent of about 5,000 parents surveyed said they "never" or "sometimes" perceived their methods to be effective.

Many of those reported turning into their own parents when it came to discipline, with 38 percent using the same methods their own parents used on them as children.
"It was surprising to see how many parents feel that disciplining their children is ineffective," Barkin said in a telephone interview.

"Many are using the same techniques their parents used on them but don't think they really work."

The study, based on a survey of parents through community based doctors in 32 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Canada, found the most common form of discipline was using time-outs, with 45 percent of parents using this method.

It found 41.5 percent of parents removed privileges, while 13 percent reported yelling at their children, and 8.5 percent reported the use of spanking "often or always."

"But we strongly suspect that both yelling and spanking might be underreported," said Barkin, whose study is published in the January issue of the journal Clinical Pediatrics.

"We know when parents perceive their methods are not working. As a third reported, then emotions can quickly escalate."

She said by the time children reached the six to 11-year-old age range, parents were about 25 percent less likely to report using time-outs and spanking as they were with younger children.

When children reached school age, parents reported a heavier use of taking away privileges and yelling.

But even in the older age range, perception that the discipline might not be working persisted.

"Disciplining is something we do daily as parents but if this many parents think it is ineffective, it highlights the need to discuss other way to teach children how to resolve conflicts," she said.

Truth be told, more than 1/3 of all children are out of control. I would that at second 1/3 of parents are ineffective at disciplining their children, but won’t admit it.

I have always said that from birth until the age of three, either parents are training their children or the children are raising their parents. Either way at age three, someone has been trained. Unfortunately in today’s world, it’s usually the parents.

Bipartisanship means working with Republicans too!

By definition “Bipartisanship” includes two parties. But despite all the talk of willingness to work together to solve California’s problems, recent history has proven that the Democrat’s definition of “Bipartisanship” is doing exactly what they want.

Sacramento Bee Columnist, Dan Walters puts it best when he writes:

The Republican governor's deals with Democratic legislators were on issues that they held dear -- such as global warming, borrowing more money for public works and raising the minimum wage -- and anything broadly controversial -- such as building more reservoirs -- was bypassed because he was eager to build a re-election record.

No conservative issues, such as reducing business regulation or reforming public employee pensions, were allowed on the table, and Republican lawmakers were largely excluded from the process. Thus, what happened in 2006 was scarcely a model of bipartisan policymaking, much less the "post-partisanship" that the governor now embraces.

So in looking to this new legislative year one can expect one of two scenarios. Either bipartisanship will continue to be the “Republican Governor” working with Democrat legislators to implement Democrat ideas. Or because re-election is behind him, the governor will work to include legislative Republicans and their ideas in the debate about how to fix California.

Only time will tell. But I’m hoping it’s the later. Walters does not seem so optimistic.

The enduring message from that experience isn't that California is entering a new, golden era of centrist and cooperative politics, but that Schwarzenegger may be able to extend his record only if he deals with matters that the Democrats value, such as increasing health coverage.

Were Schwarzenegger to expand his horizons and approach the broader array of knotty issues facing the state, not merely those favored by Democrats, he would not only have to overcome the realpolitik dynamics of the Capitol but overcome the divisions within California itself that flow from its incredible socioeconomic complexity.

Congressional Black Caucus gives Jefferson standing ovation

The following article was posted on the CNN Political Ticker:

Congressional Black Caucus gives Jefferson standing ovation

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that the 110th Democratic-led Congress convenes with a plan to immediately pass lobbyist and ethics reforms, the Congressional Black Caucus Thursday gave a standing ovation to Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who faces an FBI probe into bribery allegations.

"The haters... and negative nabobs...the people who spoke against him couldn't prevail against the people who spoke for him," Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, master of ceremonies for the CBC's celebratory event, said Thursday morning.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, led the charge to remove Jefferson from the House Ways and Means Committee last spring and has said she will not consider reinstating him to the powerful post until he is cleared of all allegations.

The FBI is currently conducting an investigation that alleges Jefferson accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman -- $90,000 of which was later recovered in the congressman's freezer.


-- CNN Congressional Producer Evan Glass

And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.....

Ted Kennedy Barack Obama Bin Laden (Video)

I thought you would enjoy this...

Employer mandate would subsidized broken healthcare system

A recent poll shows that 78% of respondents would like to have employers forced to provide health insurance for their employees. Let me see… 78% of people want someone else to pay their insurance bill… Why not their car insurance? Or Home owners insurance? Heck! Why not their mortgage payment?

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

A poll shows that voters from both major political parties overwhelmingly favor requiring employers to provide health insurance to full-time workers or pay into a state fund that would provide insurance, a signal that lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger could receive strong public support if they can agree on such a plan.

The state's two top Democrats have already proposed a health care overhaul that would require employers to "pay or play" -- either provide health insurance or pay the state to do it. Schwarzenegger is set to release his health care reform plan on Monday.

In a Field Poll released today, 78 percent of voters said they support requiring employers to provide insurance for their employees. Also, 76 percent support expanding government programs to cover more of the uninsured, and 75 percent believe part-time workers should be offered health care through a program in which costs are shared by employers, government and individuals.

Why wouldn't employees want someone else to pay for their health insurance? It's expensive! But is the problem that health insurance rates are to high or that the cost healthcare providers is too high? Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California gets it right when he eludes to the fact that fixing the system must start with reducing what hospitals and doctors are charging.
While small businesses might agree to pay something, cost savings first must be accomplished in the health care system, said Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California.

"I think the cart is before the horse," he said. "We have to talk about driving down costs. Small businesses are not willing to pay into the system as it exists right now."

This issue is reminiscent of the debate over energy deregulation a decade ago. When a deal was finally fleshed out we wound up with a system that restricted what energy companies could charge consumers, but had no control over what wholesale energy producers could charge the energy companies. As a result, you had energy companies paying exponentially more to purchase energy than they were able to charge the end user. And a you recall, things got so bad for the energy companies that Gov. Gray Davis actually borrowed money to buy energy for them to provide to the public.

One of the biggest mistakes made in the energy deregulation deal was that they never addressed the issue of the fundamental cost of energy. And if we are not to repeat history, we must address the fundamental cost of health care before we do anything else.

But rather than fix the broken system, it looks as though Legislative Democrats plan to force employers to subsidize the cost of this broken system.

"You have to have an employer mandate," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles. "If you're going to require an employee to pay for a percentage of the health care, the employer has to do their share." State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, also has proposed an employer mandate system.

It is incumbent upon those in the legislature who understand that mandating employers to pay into a broken system will only make matters worse to hold the line in this issue and not give in to the media pressure. It would be a huge mistake to simply pass the buck (or rather the bill) on to small business or the taxpayers.

Imprisoned felons get to vote?

A California appeals court has ruled that some of those who have been convicted of felonies, including: drug sales, grand theft or auto theft must be allowed to vote while they are imprisoned. Huh?

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

…last year, McPherson, following a new opinion by Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office, said the ban would apply to another group of convicts: those who had been convicted of felonies -- crimes punishable by more than a year in prison -- but who had been granted probation by the sentencing judge with conditions that included up to a year in a local jail.

Lockyer's opinion said any convicted felon behind bars should be considered "imprisoned'' and thus ineligible to vote. Thoma said McPherson had sought the opinion at the request of an unnamed county election official and was required to follow it.

The ACLU sued on behalf of the League of Women Voters, other voting-rights groups and three San Francisco jail inmates who were put on probation after felony convictions for drug sale or transportation, auto theft and grand theft. They were among 145,000 inmates placed on felony probation in California each year, of whom at least 100,000 are in jail at any one time, their lawyers said.

In a ruling last Thursday, the Court of Appeal in San Francisco said the disqualification of imprisoned felons from voting applies only to those who are sent to prison under the terms prescribed by law for their felonies. Inmates on probation are not serving sentences for felony crimes, but instead are under court supervision and subjected to various restrictions, including a period in jail, the court said

I can’t believe that I am agreeing with Bill Lockyer! These inmates are in jail for felony convictions. Thus, they should loose their right to vote until they have been released from prison and are no longer under the supervision for the crime of which they were convicted.

But leave it to the ACLU to provide legal aid to those who have no respect for the law.

Are you walking funny? (Uncommon Sense Radio)

Are you walking funny?



"If you are going to talk the talk, you should walk the walk."

How often do we question those who's deeds are inconsistant with the values they proclaim to hold? In this edition of Uncommon Sense we will help you anwer the key question, "Are you walking funny?"

Enjoy! -- Craig DeLuz