...still don't know what is though.

...they need a Margaret Thatcher!

I'm afraid I'm watching less and less of Fox. My ears are weary from the assault. Quacking women. Screaming hosts. Having to have my fingers constantly poised over the remote for when the clanging, clunking breaks come on at twice the decibel level of the programme (yes, this is a prob with TV generally). The swishing noises they so pathetically inject INTO INTERVIEWS. PLEASE!!

You can't counter Airhead America by pandering to it. All the screaming, swishing and clanging is aimed at those with ADD, those who wish to kill the moment while postponing the problem of the next, as Ayn might say. No point in aiming *anything* at them, though bullets might be good .

Well, it's not that they are unreliable, it is that Fox owns the copyright and has had YouTube remove the clips. I find it odd that Fox doesn't host the clips itself. It is a shame that Beck is aired only while most Americans are either at work (5pm Eastern) or asleep (2am Eastern) and then slips into oblivion. I don't think anyone minds them protecting their property, but why the hell don't they exploit this obviously highly popular potential revenue stream?

Ted, that site is not reliable. I just clicked on the clips and I got the message that they are no longer available!
.....................................................................................................

This site is posting Beck's shows on YouTube within about 5 hours of their being broadcast. The clips are commercial free, and are archived back thru this summer.

http://glennbeckclips.com/

...on Glenn Beck show...

...about a year ago!

Some people thought I was nuts, but who is laughing all their way to the bank now?

Beck handled this excellently, I almost felt sorry for Ms. Peta, he was so nice to her.

Beck is not an anarchist—he’ll vote! LOL! Keep the current blood hierarchy machine in motion! Why, you don’t want to be seen as an anarchist, do you! Gasp! Oh, it too delicious for words! LOL.

This 9 minute segment is one of Beck's funniest and best so far. He really rips Arlen, John and Lindsay a new one.

Also, you can watch the archives and new clips nightly at http://glennbeckclips.com/

...was an anti-climax.

However I think the rant that Beck then went into, more than made up for it.

I thought the beginning of that episode, where he played incriminating clips of Obama and his leftist cronies was much better, that the unveiling was anticlimactic.

Liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava, shemlessly supported by Republican party hacks to fill a vacated seat in a special election has withdrawn from the race after Beck spearheaded a campaign to support a principled conservative.

Glenn Beck -- The New York Special Election the GOP's ACORN Candidate -- FOX News

Marcus, perhaps you'd like to move that remark to the SPANKING THREAD?

Spanking—the case against violence upon children.

Aaron writes,

"My guess for why the butt's the preferred target for child spankers is more mundane - a relatively large, soft target means the adult could have bad aim and are less likely to sting their fingers on a bony area."

That's ridiculous. When we had our baby in the hospital, the first problem she had was with wind.

Being a new parent you're worried about handling new borns. We rubbed and massaged her, but it didn't work.

The nurse picked our baby up and started hitting her on the bottom. She then said, "Don't worry, your baby has a padding of fat in that area. It does no harm."

Immediately our baby stopped crying and then, would you believe it, even started to smile.

The bottom is the place you do the least harm. You ever heard of someone being assaulted by a punch to bottom? Possible, but not likely. Those who want to do physical damage hit someone in the face.

From my experience a light smack to the hand or bottom does not hurt, but mostly shocks the child and gets their attention.

Sometimes a raised voice or even just an angry look can have just the same effect.

It depends on the child and it depends on the adult what methods when and where are used and/or are effective or even necessary.

For further on spanking please see this thread http://www.solopassion.com/nod....

And now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

OK, let's deal with that one step by step.

(1) Do you agree with my point that no matter how you parent a kid, at some stage you are going to use force him to do something that he doesn't want to. And I'm deliberately giving the widest possible interpretation to the word force.

I want you to either state how you can parent a child without initiating force against it ever or acknowledge that we are only arguing about the degree of force that should be involved.

Note that I believe that a child's right to life is absolute. But that his other rights are held in trust until such time as they demonstrate the mental alacrity to understand the meaning of those rights and the responsibilities that accompany them. And it is the parents job to help them reach that understanding without deliberately putting them in mortal danger. That is the best three sentence summation of my views that I can come up with. Feel free to argue about this as well.

(2) Corporal punishment is wrong. Wrong how? What is the philosophical basis for this statement? For myself, I would state that smacking a bottom is at, worst, morally neutral.

I do have a good sense of humor, even when I’m the subject of the humor, but I can’t find humor in violence against children. In any event, the new thread “Spanking—the case against violence upon children” is where this subject should be taken to. Thanks.

But I would have thought anything goes for a young anarchist. She'd soon find it's the ones with the bigger weapons who dominate.

Was it mommy's spanks, or daddy's that so, shall we say, "affected" our young Sharon? Is there a movie, perhaps by a Polish director? And would she rather spank, or get spanked by Glenn Beck?

Oh, wait, I'm getting my threads confused.

The grand defenders of spanking offer up the false dichotomy of either spanking or doing nothing. Fact is, permissiveness is as unwise and counterproductive as violence. A wise parent can establish a safe environment, teaching appropriate boundaries and reasonable rules to protect life and limb. Such a model has a greater appeal to a child inclined to imitation and cooperation. This method, it is true, takes more skill and patience than smacks and hits, but it is moral and it works. It strengthens the bond between parent and child. However, parents who harbor anger and impatience, and who are generally coasting along an internal inertia, are not likely to be persuaded.

Richard-
If you are only advocating striking in response to physical violence from a child then I still think there is a serious intent (did that 2 year old accidentally hit you or intentionally?) and proportionality (there is no question you are larger and can hit much harder - can it *really* be defense?) issue involved in what you're advocating.

Aaron, I'm advocating a smack as a useful tool to resolve a situation. Whether or not that tool is used is up to the adult who's resolving the situation. Of course proportionality should be used. That goes without saying doesn't it? Surely. You don't take out a gun and shoot a misbehaving kid dead, just as you don't put away your gun and try to smack your rapist on his bottom. You give the rapist what I like to call the adult smack, which is usually done with a gun or a baton or taser or, in the absence of any useful implement, a closed fist.

However, it's good to know that you are even limiting it to that context. I assumed given things such as the toaster example that the spanking advocates were considering it as many parents do, i.e. their tool for any arbitrary rules violation.

In such an environment it isn't actually the smack that does the harm, it is the arbitrariness that messes with the kids head that does the harm.

Richard-
If you are only advocating striking in response to physical violence from a child then I still think there is a serious intent (did that 2 year old accidentally hit you or intentionally?) and proportionality (there is no question you are larger and can hit much harder - can it *really* be defense?) issue involved in what you're advocating. However, it's good to know that you are even limiting it to that context. I assumed given things such as the toaster example that the spanking advocates were considering it as many parents do, i.e. their tool for any arbitrary rules violation.

Kasper-
"Smacking is harmless,"

That's a very strong, unqualified statement. Is your criteria only physical, e.g. 'doesn't leave a physical mark'? And are you willing to stand by the statement such that smacking in general isn't an offense because it's 'harmless'?

"it brings results,"

Ends doesn't justify the means, but in a sense I agree it does tend to cause results - avoiding the particular action preceding the strike - at least when in the presence of the adult delivering it, learning implicit distrust of that adult and appreciation for might-makes-right, and potentially being denied a more valuable lesson about the consequences of their actions.

"it demonstrates to the child that there are real and adverse consequences at an early age to guide proper behaviour which also should be acknowledged and praised."

One of the most significant issues is it actually replaces real, natural consequences with artificial ones. Children should learn real world consequences, and many actions they take naturally have them - leave your toys out and they may get stepped on and broken, always boss your friends and they may not want to play with you, run out in the street and you may get hit by a car. Obviously with the last example there can be extreme cases - such as life+limb risks, or real violation of others' rights - where the natural consequence is too dangerous to be allowed and the child should be restrained. However, such cases are the exception, not the norm, and most punitive discipline (spanking or even others like timeout) unnecessarily replaces the natural consequences with an artificial system of rewards+punishment. If you want someone to be raised with an appreciation of reality, it's counterproductive to short-circuit their connection to it.

Doing so's no fun, but I'm going to have to bow out of this simply for time reasons; I wouldn't have time for a good war or IP debate now, and child-rearing isn't even one of my hotbuttons.. If you are interested in Objectivist child-rearing approaches including those without punitive discipline, I recommend checking out Rational Jenn and Diana Hsieh's 'OGrownups' list.

Aaron

You've dropped context completely, Sharon. Where do I ever say spare the rod and spoil the child?

Kasper puts forward my position succinctly and perfectly when he says this:

Smacking is harmless, it brings results, it demonstrates to the child that there are real and adverse consequences at an early age to guide proper behaviour which also should be acknowledged and praised.

Smacking reflects the real world. You don't like that. Well fair enough. Do what you want with your own children but leave others free to raise theirs with a smack as part of their tool kit for good parental guidance.

"it always felt so wrong to smack you guys when you were children, as a mother I felt so guilty about it and yet what was more tragic is that when I did it, you and your brother came into line immediately". As children we were never smacked for the same crime. The theme was similar for sure, disobedience, lying or doing something we knew was plain wrong.

Smacking or beating your children in the absence of principled and consistent parenting won't solve your problems. Look at the Maori's .

However, no one is arguing that.

Smacking is harmless, it brings results, it demonstrates to the child that there are real and adverse consequences at an early age to guide proper behaviour which also should be acknowledged and praised.

Today we have teenager's who have no-discipline, bugger all respect and who get away with blue-murder with little consequence. The joke is on them and it's a nasty one. They become young adults without a $ to their name, no real future plan, petty crime and defaulting on their debt's.

The only harsh consequences available to young people today is when the law system kicks in as they approach their second decade. In my opinion that ambulance is so un-neccesarily and preventably far down the cliff. All that is left is longer sentences and rehabilitative psychobable.

I have seen families bring up their children without smacking them and it has worked too. It doesn't work for everyone and when necessary, IMO, a smack is appropriate.

You can't generalise one rule for children to adults. Adults already have the conceptual faculty necessary to guide their choices and think about their implications. Adults are also burdened with being fully responsible for their choices. Psychiatric patients won't learn from smacking and it could be argued their actions are un-controllable. Children don't have the conceptual faculty to fully inform them of their choices also they aren't yet burdened with the responsibility of suffering any consequences to their actions. BUT they are teachable.

Spare the rod and spoil the child—that good old Biblical injunction. (Hey, where is Rosie these days to argue on your side?)

“How are you going to teach children about individual rights and rights violation and the consequences of that, if you don't teach them about lines crossed?”

Let’s translate this: How are you going to teach children about individual rights and rights violation and the consequences of that, if you don’t use violence against them.

Welcome, everyone, to Orwellian world!

“Does it matter to you what the line is or should be—“

Uh, yeah, Richard, it really does matter what that line is. Give specifics. Could you be a little more vague, Daddy Dearest?

I’m for violence only in retaliation against those who start its use—and I agree with the Objectivist explanation as to what is violence and what is not. There is no greater disparity between that of an adult or a child, physically or cognitively. There can be no moral justification to inflicting violence against a child whatsoever.

How are you going to teach children about individual rights and rights violation and the consequences of that, if you don't teach them about lines crossed? Does it matter to you what the line is or should be, or are you just against any kind of 'violence', as if violence is always a bad thing?

Right. And "a line crossed" spells it out for your own "universal context". We all know the force of lines crossed.

The talk about children violating rights and an argument of self defense is confusing the issue of discipline.

But a legitimate smack is a retaliatory in response to a line crossed. On the contrary. Making it clear that a legitimate smack is retaliatory force doesn't confuse the issue. In fact, it starts to provide a universal context, something that your "two year old" example doesn't do.

For the sake of clarification, I am not saying that the spanking of the buttocks is done so to indulge or satisfy some erotic itch, subconsciously or other wise. I’m saying that spanking is wrong all together - with a particular emphasis on the buttocks being no exception for reasons stated very clearly.

Robert-
"The problem I have with the absolutist 'hitting children is a crime' crowd is that they never define their terms."

I don't know about Sharon, but I haven't made any claim about criminality. I do consider corporal punishment of children wrong and bad parenting, but there's a line between simply bad parenting and criminal abuse. Of course I don't agree with some person's insane belief that the *children* are criminals.

The talk about children violating rights and an argument of self defense is confusing the issue of discipline. Yes, if a 17 year old is pulling a gun on you or physically assaulting you, by all means defend yourself violently. But it doesn't make sense to confuse such actual rights-violating issues with the tiny hands of a two year old flailing about in a tantrum.

(BTW, I do not agree with Sharon's new erotic angle on this. No doubt there are some perverts out there for whom spanking children is sexual, but I don't think that is widespread or the real reason for the butt being the common target. Hitting somewhere else on the body would not be better. My guess for why the butt's the preferred target for child spankers is more mundane - a relatively large, soft target means the adult could have bad aim and are less likely to sting their fingers on a bony area.)

If you really want to get into a discussion of alternatives, such as concepts of non-punitive discipline and Objectivism let me know. That gets into a much broader and more philosophical discussion that I could engage in to some extent that I have time, but could refer you to other sources of info on it too.

Aaron

...of smacking must be one of the most bizarre things ever proposed on SOLO.

I would normally expect such an idea to come out of some left-wing feminazi think tank.
..................................................................................................

John Stossel leaves ABC for Fox

I say spare the children from the wet sops, who're far more dangerous to the mental health than a justifiably given smack.

"Rights violating behavior? We are still talking about children, right?"

Absolutely! Children are not all timid little creatures that will be driven to a life of emotional turmoil going from one psychiatrists couch to the other just because someone went boo or gave them a smack for bad behaviour. Yet too many wet dish-rags in this world act as if they all are.

Drown the little horrors. And flog the parents for breeding them. Wot's hard about it? Sheesh!

Robert, since I explained the nature of hitting a child’s buttocks, I hope you won’t go on to advocate smacking children across the face.

Take your bizarre sexual obsessions elsewhere? Start a new thread. I am interested in Beck, not your politically correct erotic fantasies.

"A smack is a useful tool, just as a baton, or even a bullet is a useful tool, for putting an end to rights violating behavior. A smack can be a good thing. It shows that there are consequences."

Rights violating behavior? We are still talking about children, right?

A smack is a useful tool, just as a baton, or even a bullet is a useful tool, for putting an end to rights violating behavior. A smack can be a good thing. It shows that there are consequences.

"It doesn't matter whether you smack their bottoms or physically restrain them without hitting - you are still applying force [...] This is not to say that it is the best way of instruction, but it is not criminal and nor is it immoral."

The buttocks are a sexual or erogenous part of the human anatomy, just as are a woman’s breasts, even though they are not actually sex organs. That is why exposing one’s buttocks in public is considered licentious and why exposure in movies is considered nudity. Anyone who fondles another person’s buttocks without consent is considered a sexual offender.

The sexual nature of the buttocks is explicated not only by their proximity to the genitals, but also by their nerve endings which lead directly to sexual nerve centers. The buttocks are a major locus of sexual signals.

The sexuality of the buttocks is noteworthy not just to adults, but to children as well--even though children are sexually immature and without an active sex drive. It is a fact that children are, from the time of birth, neurologically complete sexual beings capable of experiencing erotic sensation. Therefore, since children are sexual beings and since the buttocks are a sexual region of the body, we should question the acceptance of slapping children’s buttocks. It is understood that fondling or caressing a child’s buttocks is a sexual offense (even if the child does not understand it to be so). It is also understood that slapping an adult’s buttocks is a sexual offense (even if the offender does not get sexual pleasure from doing so).

Why is slapping a child’s buttocks not considered a sexual offence? A credible explanation for this breach of logic is simply that the majority of people are unable or unwilling to believe there could be anything morally wrong about a practice as old and accepted as the spanking of children. It is something which nearly everyone has received, given or witnessed at least once. It is a matter of tradition, in some twisted way. And since spankings typically come from esteemed authority figures—people we admire and our own parents--many people are averse to question this behaviour.

Not this old Chesnut again!

The problem I have with the absolutist 'hitting children is a crime' crowd is that they never define their terms.

If you want to make the argument that there is a better way to teach your children, then I'm all ears. But let's not pretend that you can bring up a child without initiating force against it at some level or other. Time-out is essentially preventive detention after all. Taking them with you in the car so that they aren't left alone is usually done against their will and yet, as their guardian and provider, you must make them come with you whether they listen and accept your reasons or not. It doesn't matter whether you smack their bottoms or physically restrain them without hitting - you are still applying force.

We are therefore left with the conundrum of drawing a boundary on the continuum of 'force' in order to define what is acceptable, morally neutral and harmless as opposed to what is life-threatening and criminal. Marcus, it seems, believes as I do that a smack on the arse is below that threshold of criminal or even morally repugnant behavior. And there is ample evidence from my own life to prove that this form of discipline is harmless.

This is not to say that it is the best way of instruction, but it is not criminal and nor is it immoral. Now if you want to argue that there is a more enlightened and morally correct way to correct your child's negative behavior - go right ahead, I'm willing to be convinced.
But I won't be guilt-tripped with this sort of context abandoning bunk "So we should also “smack” ill-behaved retarded people and old folks wheelchair bound for similar reasons? Hell, why not just toss in a recalcitrant spouse for good measure..."

"You may be in ignorance of this, living in some fantasy PC world of your own, but policemen often hit criminals and protestors when they need to be restrained.

What did you think the baton was for?

To many people the world is full of cuddly panda's, candy floss and people who have no more excitement than saying howdy to one another in the street each day - but I'm afraid they have been sheltered and spoiled by an afluent urban society that has sanitized the facts of the 'real' world."

So now apparently children are equivalent to street thugs, worthy of being hit with a billy club, and to think otherwise is to live in a fantasy world. Bizarre, Marcus... ridiculous and not helping your case. You were better off trying to go somewhere with toasters than trying to treat kids as criminals.

Aaron

...you've mentioned that your opposition to smacking or physical restraint is conditional.

Well, I guess we do basically agree then.

"...we've established that it is acceptable, nay even necessary, to restrain a child for its own good. If the child struggles and strikes out, this is quite a violent exchange. What is the difference if a smack is given and causes the child to stop being violent or destructive?"

Everything is wrong with corporal punishment. You are teaching a child that violence is a valid form of settling disagreements, problems or discord. There are no other persons who are as vulnerable as a child, and the power disparity between child and adult could not be greater. There are other methods of discipline and teaching besides violence.

We are not talking about a child who is about to bolt in the middle of a busy intersection, or who is about to stick a fork into a toaster—in which, I agree, swift action is needed. We are talking about corporal punishment for whatever misbehaviour or discipline. These actions are different and you are obviously trying to blend them together to make your case.

...I think Glenn Beck must be a Daily Telegraph reader!
..................................................................................................

...we've established that it is acceptable, nay even necessary, to restrain a child for its own good. If the child struggles and strikes out, this is quite a violent exchange. What is the difference if a smack is given and causes the child to stop being violent or destructive?

You may be in ignorance of this, living in some fantasy PC world of your own, but policemen often hit criminals and protestors when they need to be restrained.

What did you think the baton was for?

To many people the world is full of cuddly panda's, candy floss and people who have no more excitement than saying howdy to one another in the street each day - but I'm afraid they have been sheltered and spoiled by an afluent urban society that has sanitized the facts of the 'real' world.

Children aren't fully rational beings, therefore it can be OK to hit them?

Quite obvious I would have thought.

Children are not born with common sense and cannot survive without a guardian.

Adults 'should' know better and do not need a guardian.

Of course, when they continue to behave in a senseless and iresponsible manner like children often do (that can cause damage or harm), the police will step in and arrest them.

You as a citizen may even need to defend yourself against such adults. That could take on a violent, physical form.

Children don't need police, but guardians, who take the responsibility for moderating their behaviour.

Of course the system is not perfect, there are many adults who are not rational and still live in their own fantasy world of state handouts and free lollipops. They barely look after themselves, let alone a child.

"And if the child disregards your warning and keeps repeating the action over and over?"

So we should also “smack” ill-behaved retarded people and old folks wheelchair bound for similar reasons? Hell, why not just toss in a recalcitrant spouse for good measure – by your standard, it applies to "correct" some behaviour. Why a different standard for children and some other for adults? That's what I want to know.

...disregards your warning and keeps repeating the action over and over?

Children don't always understand your rational arguments, and even if they do, want to 'test' you to see how far they can push your resolve.

Children, in my opinion, want to respect authority. It is up to you to make that authority worthy of them.

I'm not saying a smack is always the best option, but in some situations it may work just as well as restraining the child (which is actually a violent action akin to smacking when the child resists).

And I do not know of any case - in the real world - whereby a parent has not had to restrain a child at some point.

If I saw a child about to destroy valuable property, injure another person or themselves - I would restrain them.

Sometimes you simply do not have enough time to say - no - or the child simply does not listen to the parent.

Physically grab the child and prevent the action—and with an explanation--just as you would push an adult out of the way of a speeding car. Smacking and spanking is a different action. You know this.

Why shout, finger wag, chastise, punish or ever tell a child off?

What rational reason is served?

Indeed, when a child is about to stick a knife or fork into a toaster, you should adopt a hands-off approach, and let the child suffer the consequences of their actions.

Completely rational, don't you think?

As long as WHAT doesn’t cause physical harm? The smack? Why smack at all? What *rational* reason is served?

As long as the smack didn't constitute physical harm to the child, and you regarded it as "violent and barbaric" for no rational reason, then for all due intents and purposes you would be being politically correct. You have to draw the line somewhere, no?

Whether you do smack your children or not, is a completely different matter.

So if I regard spanking my child as barbaric, as violent, I am being politically correct? Rightio.

Glenn Beck discusses architecture...

by my step-sister, 28, that Beck is just a giant idiot. Fox is not a news organsisation. It is right wing and biased.

The fact that it's right wing has no import. People should acknowledge the bias and move past it.

Hahaha. The ignorance of some kiwi's. This was in response to his five videos that i'd posted on my facebook dated October 19th.
She obviously hadn't watched them as he explained that his job was not of journalist reporter but of political commentator and since it's his show he can do what he pleases.

The guy most certainly is no idiot. He has done a magnificent job this year uncovering issue by issue the sequence of political events that have unfolded in the US, he discusses the progressive strategy and most importantly he's acknowledged and addressed all those arguments opposing him.

I have learned more about the skewy logic, the sophist and anti-individualist strategies of the socialist/progressive movement by watching this guy turn those strategies onto their heads piece by piece, than from any commentry in New Zealand.

The man is a dynamo.

Also hilarious, and pithily so. The red bat-phone direct line to the Whitehouse. The little puppy he uses as a media "watchdog". It's surgical sarcasm aimed directly at the heart of the beast.

He's the first pop capitalist and makes the likes of Maher and Letterman look like staid, old liberal cronies, which is what they are.

I used to worry that he'd burn out, but it's occurred to me that Beck is the type that thrives on this sort of delivery. In fact, he'd explode if he *didn't* behave the way he does.