I'll start: Spanking works! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581882,00.html

Have at it, everyone. School starts back today, without regard to the fact that we're exhausted because my fantastically talented daughter played her first show last night. (Acoustic, Greenbrier, Tennessee. Great punk band later. Very polite boys). Since she's fifteen, I got to drive her and I was surprised at how publicly appreciative she was. Must have been those early spankings.

Thanks for coming in, Robin. Crid was going to turn this into the gay rights debate again. Such is the nature of obsession.

I think, after reading the article, that it's premature to decide that spanking works. This statement is key:

Research into the effects of spanking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been spanked, given its past cultural acceptability.

The problem with this is that you're comparing spanked children (who were not spanked into adolescence) with children who were not spanked at all. There's no information given about the children who weren't spanked. Were they merely not spanked, or not disciplined in any way, shape or form? What were the expectations placed on them? What were the consequences, if any, should those expectations not be met?

The title, in fact, is very misleading. But it comes from Fox, and their purpose is to mislead. Either they are not sharing the details of this study, or it's a very poorly done study.

I've tried to find a link to this, but I was in the car the other night and dh was listening to ESPN at a college bowl. One of the reporters talked about a player not allowed to play that day because he was "caught driving a car he didn't own". Apparently, it's only stealing a car if you're not an athlete. Liberal NewSpeak at it's finest! Sort of like "evacuating the contents of your uterus".

Spanking works??? Well, duh! The studies that "prove" it doesn't have serious methodology flaws. Like, studying 1 years who are spanked (hello, you don't spank babies!) or including all physical abuse as "spanking".

My dad used to say, "Mother bears swat their cubs."

Still, he never spanked me. He did, however, spank my brothers. My ex's father beat the crap out of the boys in the family but never touched the girls.

I wonder how many of you had a similar gender disparity in your families. How many girls here were spanked as opposed to boys? I suspect boys are spanked much more.

Gay rights or spanking? Such choices for a comment thread! We've got more important issues to deal with, don't we? Like whether the Redskins will try to build their team through the draft this spring, rather than hire wildly overpriced free agents?

We were all spanked. My brothers and me, I mean. Once or twice with a wooden paddle, too. In fact, I remember talking about being spanked with the other kids in grade school. Some kids got spanked with a belt, and not just on their asses, either. I remember one kid who got hit in the head with his father's belt. More than once. He was a holy terror, though, as were his brothers. They were the ones who were the school bullies, stealing other kids' lunches, milk money, books, all that. Crazy. I remember one time, my younger brother did something (I don't even remember what it was, now) and my mom broke one of her wooden spoons on his ass. And a friend of ours, he got caught smoking out behind the garage, and his father took a 2 x 4 to his ass. Repeatedly. Then there was the time I was grounded for coming home late from school (9 p.m., yes I was smoking pot at the time) and I (thought I) snuck out my bedroom window. I heard my dad running up the street behind me, he grabbed me by my hair and dragged my ass home, where he proceeded to take a 2 x 4 to it (my ass, that is). Just once, but that was enough. I was almost 16 at the time. But that was the last time he ever hit me. I threatened to go to the cops. But this was back in the days when parents were expected to keep their unruly kids in line, by any means at their disposal, and it was usually by corporal punishment. Our elementary school principal had a big wooden paddle hanging on one wall in his office, with the words "Board of Education" etched in it. Those bullies? Got that board at least once a month. Then they got beaten at home. One of the brothers is now a well-respected mechanic with his own shop. Another one is a lawyer. The oldest one is still in jail, last I heard.

Here's one of my favorite blogs:

http://stfuparents.tumblr.com/

I was spanked with a leather belt plenty, I'm sure as much as my brothers. My dad was a marine, so we also had the "drop and give me 20" for lesser offenses. I grew up tough, and still am. And no, I don't use my fists to solve my problems now, or think that might makes right (although I do believe one needs might to enforce what's right sometimes). Adults have a brain, and being spanked when young does NOT mean you'll be a violent adult. That's just yet another excuse for criminals that libs have come up with.

@Karen: "Here's one of my favorite blogs..."

Oh my goodness, that blog's a scream!

"and being spanked when young does NOT mean you'll be a violent adult."

No one is suggesting that there is a 1:1 correlation between people who were spanked as children and violent adults, but it's foolish to suggest that there is no link whatsoever between being subjected to physical abuse (which some of the stories in this thread certainly sound like - I don't think giving an unruly kid a swat on the rear if s/he is refusing to listen is some grave sin, but beating a child with a 2x4 is horrible) and later being willing to subject others to similar or worse violence. After all, most people think that they themselves turned out quite all right, so it's logical that many people who have been physically abused wouldn't think it's a big deal to do it to others.

This is an interesting article with a newish take on nature vs. nuture: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene

>>I wonder how many of you had a similar gender disparity in your families. How many girls here were spanked as opposed to boys? I suspect boys are spanked much more.

Lovelysoul,
Funnily enough, in my family the sole boy - the youngest of four - never, ever got spanked or slapped. (I always figured it was because my slap-happy mother had finally run out of steam!).

As the second eldest girl, I copped far too much. I still can't decide what I loathed more - the bullying slaps themselves or the tedious, somewhat guilt-inspired blustering justification after a smacking..."you made me so mad...".

Best thing I ever did was marrying a man who had never been hit himself. We have never smacked our kids.

(I know some people on this topic claim they were only ever hit "calmly" or in appropriately rare circumstances and that it did them no harm. I'm glad to hear it, but that wasn't the case here.)

I spanked a few times when my kids were growing up, but it was rare, and, when I look back, I almost always did it when I was unsure of what else to do...and when I was pretty angry.

I'm a calm personally generally, so I find it hard to accept when parents claim they don't spank when they're angry. Maybe some parents are that self-controlled, but I think most of us who have witnessed spankings and performed them, realize that most of the time, spankings occur in anger - just like the boy who got hit in the head with the belt.

And I just don't think that is the healthiest way to handle discipline, or the best message to send. I don't believe it necessarily leads to violence, but when it's done frequently, it can shut a child down emotionally.

The boys in my ex's family are much less emotionally stable than the girls, who were never hit. The girls almost all have long-lasting, happy marriages, whereas the oldest son has been married 5 times, my ex twice, and the middle boy just died from drugs and alcohol at 54.

The youngest boy got spanked the least (dad was old and wearing out by then) and he seems to be the most stable - married and raising two sons in a very positive way. He doesn't spank.

My ex was violent towards our son. His only way of disciplining was what he'd learned from his dad, so he'd overreact and things would often become physical, and I'd have to calm him down.

So, physical violence doesn't always show up like a person would go around hitting random people. My ex wouldn't do that. But the damage often comes out either in their own parenting or their intimate relationships.

When my girls were little, there were a couple of times when I spanked them. The oldest, when she was 2, ran into the street without looking both ways, and I ran after her, scooped her up, and swatted her once on the behind and said NO! really loud. She got mad, but she never ran into the street again. Once, when she was 3, I was giving her a bath and she was screaming at the top of her lungs about not wanting a bath, so I dumped a glass of really cold water over her head. She stopped screaming and sat in the tub real quick! Number 2 has been spanked a couple, three times maybe, when she was out of control with her screaming, about not wanting to go to bed. I haven't spanked either of them since they were around 4 years old. There's been no need. I find that punishments of grounding them or taking away their tv, computer and/or phone privileges are much more effective.

I don't doubt spanking is effective in many instances and I don't reject it as a punishment from some kind of ethical or theoretical standpoint...I've just never seen it as necessary...and I think that the kids' personalities play a big role. I didn't get punished a whole lot but I didn't do a whole lot to warrant it. I'm not lying, my mom would vouch for this!

Also, I feel strongly that parents must model the right behavior for their kids. My dad would yell at us and degrade us and not allow us to have opinions. He would say that when he spoke it was like Jesus Christ himself. I always found this incredibly egotistical and fucked up.

Sure, parents are in charge. Kids should respect parents. But if the parent is an asshole to the kids, are the kids really going to behave perfectly?? I absolutely do not agree with the old-time sentiment that one must always respect their elders. I respect people from the get-go but if they do something to lose that respect I don't turn around and bend over for him/her. Simply being older than me doesn't give someone a free pass to be a jerk. My dad never treated us respectfully. It was always "get off your lazy ass and do this" (after I did 3 hours of homework, went to swim team and helped cook dinner) never "Gretchen, could you please do X, thanks!". If you didn't do what he wanted within some random time frame he decided upon all hell would break loose. He'd throw your toy or whatever. Tell you you are an ungrateful loser.

And he wonders why my sister and brother never, ever, listened to him? I was an avoider. They were/are fighters. He modeled the behavior and they copied!

Oh. And he'll drone on and on about what a good dad he was because he never whipped us with a belt.

Fucking a.

it's foolish to suggest that there is no link whatsoever between being subjected to physical abuse . . . and later being willing to subject others to similar or worse violence.

Fortunately, nobody's suggested that.

(which some of the stories in this thread certainly sound like - I don't think giving an unruly kid a swat on the rear if s/he is refusing to listen is some grave sin, but beating a child with a 2x4 is horrible)

The point of punishment is negative reinforcement. A swat on the rear doesn't hurt; punishment that induces laughter is counterproductive. Beating a child with a 2x4, in a way that does not cause damage, after explaining what they did wrong, can be an effective way to prevent the child from repeating the wrong behavior. It's not the only effective way (fortunately some children respond to time-outs and loss of privileges), and it's no guarantee (there exist psychologically damaged children who cannot respond to correction), but it works.

Obviously there are lots of ways to beat someone with a 2x4 that do cause physical or psychological damage. Breaking bones, causing bruises that are not covered by normal clothing, and causing injury, all cross the line. You don't need to do any of those things to make a spanking unpleasant for a child.

Re: Spanking when angry

That's one reason for the instruction: "Go out and cut a switch." Another is to instill a sense of dread. Another is to teach about the small switch lesson. (It isn't less painful.)

Actually, I was never switched; I learned this from my brother, who was switched once by my Grandfather for hitting me with a bat. I probably deserved it; I tortured him incessantly.

The only time I ever tried to swat my little girl on the rear, I got the giggles. Too much padding, so she couldn't feel it. I tweaked my technique to the hot handprint on the upper thigh, only used 3 times: Traffic, gas stove, and climbing a tall bookcase. They were pretty close together, and after those, she took to listening to my instructions rather carefully.

@Gretchen, you have to give respect to get respect. Simple, but for some not easy.

Off this topic for a moment, but the most ridiclous thing I have seen so far this (new) decade:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

In 7th grade to get on the wrestling team I had my first "turn your head and cough" by a beautiful black nurse. It made my month, along with about 30 other young men's month. She probably felt like she was buying peaches. This whole privacy issue amazes me. If somebody behind a machine sees mine and 2,000 other genitals a day, should I really feel violated?

Competely off the spanking topic....why is Charlie Sheen getting less shit for pulling a knife on his wife than Tiger got for simply cheating? Tiger is losing endorsements left and right and has withdrew from public life. Chris Brown still has no career while Sheen is happily back at work. This isn't Sheen's first arrest or incident. Why is he made of teflon?

But it comes from Fox, and their purpose is to mislead. Either they are not sharing the details of this study, or it's a very poorly done study.

Ah yes, the "Patrick hates Fox" theme is revived for the new year. Anyone have today in the pool?

I read the Fox News article twice. It's not misleading. It is a short article, so space is limited and, therefore, it doesn't include every excruciating detail of the study (if those details were even released). Being a short article, it is in no way meant to be a comprehensive review of Gunroe's study. For a short article, however, it was still fairly inclusive.

The article reported the study, the person who did it, and the size of the sample (2,600 with 1/4 of whom reporting never having been physically punished). Of course, you'll need to read the actual study to draw any significant conclusions about it.

The article also reported the difficulty with conducting this type of study in the past.

It included a mention of the viewpoint of the advocates who want to outlaw spanking.

And included mention that the study showed anti-social and behavioral problems show up if spanking continues into adolescence.

The article mentioned that the college at which Gunroe teaches is Calvin College, but failed to mention that it's a Christian liberal arts school (which does cause me to wonder if Gunroe brought some pro-spanking biases to her study).

But Calvin may redeem itself somewhat in your eyes, Patrick, with the fact that faculty and students at Calvin protested the politicization of the commencement ceremony in 2005 when President Bush was invited to be the commencement speaker.

Searches of CNN and MSNBC showed they had no report of the Gunroe study. On the other hand, CNN did run a full-length article on a September 2009 anti-spanking conclusion by Lisa Berlin at Duke University. The Berlin study did not show up in a search of Fox News, but other anti-spanking articles did.

The CNN article gave no more actual details about Berlin's study than Fox News did about Gunroe's (2,500+ toddlers from low-income families). Being a full-length article, the CNN piece gave more space to Berlin's conclusions and supporting viewpoints. It was also able to include the viewpoint of Robert Larzelere of Oklahoma State University who disputed Berlin's conclusion, saying her study showed no causal link. Larzelere was also quoted as saying the best use of spanking is in children between 2 and 6 (which is what Gunroe's study found).

An article on the Gunroe study in the Telegraph was longer than the Fox News article (and meant for a British readership which is undergoing a very public corporal punishment debate at this time) so it made room for more viewpoints from anti-spanking advocates. The Telegraph, like Fox News, did not report the details of the study or the Christian affiliation of Calvin College. A later opinion piece disparaging the study did mention the Christian affiliation.

The Times of London, mentioned in the Fox News article quoting anti-spanking advocates, did not have a story on the Gunroe study.

We all know you hate Fox News, Patrick. But the fact that something is reported by Fox News does not automatically make it misleading. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, even if you don't like cigars.

And sometimes the news does not conform to your personal biases. In this case, a study was released by a professor at a small college and that release was reported by a news agency (yes...a news agency). Nothing more.

"This isn't Sheen's first arrest or incident. Why is he made of teflon?"

I think he would've suffered more consequences in public opinion, except that the wife was drunk (.13 I think), and she kind of recanted her story the next day....and she has a rather sordid history of DUI and drug arrests...plus, she's trying to reconcile with him. It sounds like it may have been a drunken overeaction to call the police.

Americans like a clear villian and victim in their moral tales. Tiger's wife is a pure, sympathetic victim, so the population can root for her and hate him.

I agree to a point, Lovelysoul, but in the past he's never really paid either. His incidents always seem to get covered up fast and well, but there still have been several. I tried to link an article by Linda Stasi in the NY Post about all his incidents and how with each one he got a career boost, but my computer skills need work. I get that with Chris Brown we saw what he did immediately and it was horrible, but do we as a society need to see the proof of injuries before we make a judgment? As far as Sheen's wife, I'm under no illusions. She knew what she was getting into and I'm sure had an eye on the cash prize, but still. He has a history of this and no serious repurcussions.

Why is Charlie Sheen getting less shit for pulling a knife on his wife than Tiger got for simply cheating?

Charlie got into an argument with his wife and pulled a knife (or not) in the heat of the moment (albeit one of several domestic violence incidents over the years involving Sheen). Tiger willfully cheated on his wife...many times.

There's an element of saving grace when the injured spouse sticks by the cad. Charlie's wife wants to work things out. Tiger's left him.

There's no comparing the role of the two in advertising products. Charlie is one of several spokespersons for an underwear brand. Tiger is the face of several brands (Accenture, Buick, Tag Heuer, and others).

The job loss (or not) in both cases was voluntary. Charlie is a television actor and chose to go back to work on his show (his absence would put several people out of work). Tiger chose to drop off the tour for an unspecified period of time (which put his caddy out of work - golf goes on without him).

The pay disparity is pretty wide. Charlie is a television actor and while he makes a good living, is not paid significantly more than his contemporaries who helm their own shows. Tiger is the highest paid golfer (and perhaps athlete) of all time.

The level of disappointment is greater. No one expected much of Charlie Sheen or wished their children would emulate him. Many parents viewed Tiger as a role model and wanted their children to be like him.

Well, here's what Charlie's uncle has to say about it:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/01/charlie-sheens-uncle-whatever-that-actor-does-is-blown-out-of-porportion/1

A single moment of unguided improvisation, and Patrick quickly speaks to fear me. I think I'm under his skin... I think I'm the reason he's here. He needs the excuse to say horrible things to people.


> If somebody behind a machine sees
> mine and 2,000 other genitals a
> day, should I really feel violated?

Airline safety is a good topic this week. It's not that you should feel 'violated' as if you were being stripped naked on the street, but...

Well, actually, what if you were stripped naked on the street? Soon enough there'll be an Ipod-sized version of this device priced for city goverments. What would you think if you were going to get on a city bus, but the driver had to nude-scan you first? Would you put up with it? Does the moment of eye contact with the guy reading the screen make the difference? Does ANYTHING make the difference? We're letting our dignity be nickeled-and-dimed.

(Busses used to get blown up by terrorists in Israel all the time; it was horrible. It seemed to stop shortly after a rumor went around that the Israelis were building little vials into the bus frames, so that a suicide bomber was likely to be showered with pork blood upon detonation, thus never to reach heaven.)

The problem with all the measures at the aiport is much like that of the secret agencies, the CIA and NSA. We'll never be able to prove that the CIA didn't prevent a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in 1977. Of course, there's ZERO reason to think that, but as a logical argument, it can't be defeated. So they have black budgets and good will, and no matter how often they prove themselves wholly inimical to American character they stumble on and on, darkening all the lives they touch.

And so it is with the TSA. We'll never be able to prove that the TSA didn't stop an airliner from plowing into the Golden Gate bridge in 2007. And the bad guys, the TSA, are using that little bit of logic to their best advantage.

AND WE'RE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT, just like with the spook agencies.

> why is Charlie Sheen getting less shit
> for pulling a knife on his wife than Tiger
> got for simply cheating?

Fair question, but for the record, he's a (lesser) sitcom star now, whereas Tiger was the linchpin of multi-billion dollar industry.

PS — here's a link from the blog Karen links, a favorite Silicon Valley pundit.

PPS— Powell's is one of my top five bookstores ever, and three of them are closed

And in this one, a PR expert seems to think that these scandals fit his "bad boy" persona:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/28/charlie.sheen.image/index.html

It may be a load of crap, or it may not. Either way, he keeps on working what works for him!

Fun from Drudge: "France to introduce new law banning 'psychological violence' in marriages"

I particularly enjoy the horror of the couple in the first photograph, "posed by models". That couple is what everyone reading the Sunday NYT dreams of being. Attractive, near the peak of fertility, in white-painted room, wearing sophisticated, colorless sportwear, bathed in light from Malibu or the south of France, with no pesky children bothering them and no boring books on the shelves. And attractive. Even when they fight.

People want the courts to handle these things. There is a substantial percentage of the WORLD's articulate population —13%? Maybe 27%?— which never really got over their squabbles with brothers and sisters as children, when Mom & Dad refused to take a side. And now they're grown up, and they're going to DEMAND the government finally bring down the personal justice.

Sheen basically plays himself - a charming douchebag/player - on his TV show, and after the Heidi Fleiss scandal, we all knew he bought prostitutes. After his marriage to Denise Richards, we heard she charged him with having a porn addiction, and still frequenting prostitutes, so I think the expectation level was already very low for Sheen. It doesn't get anybody that upset because he didn't have very far to fall in our estimation to begin with.

Tiger, on the other hand, had such a spotless reputation that we all felt just as cheated as Elin.

Besides, it's really hard to feel sympathy for anyone stupid enough to marry Charlie Sheen. Although I usually rail against this argument, she is one of those women who clearly should've "chosen better". She has no excuse. His vices have been well-known and publicized for years.

In other news, father/daughter idjits and worst idea ever to relieve the boredom of a long drive at http://www.thesttammanynews.com/articles/2010/01/03/news/doc4b3ce77290905703263392.txt

No word on whether either were spanked as children . . .

I have a question. I have several friends who have spouses who do not share their political views and each of the couple voted for different candidates in the last presidential election. Usually it has been the guy who is the conservative/libertarian and the woman who is the liberal/socialist but not always. It seems to me that conservative men do a much better job of staying married and keeping the peace with liberal women than the other way around. Many of these men just seem to expect their wives and girlfriends to be liberal. One guy I know went so far as to list himself on a dating web site as a "progressive" in order to get some dates and reasoned that if he met women he did not get along with, and who could not put their politics aside, that he could end the relationship by telling them his true views. Also maybe a conservative/libertarian woman would almost never marry a liberal guy because she would perceive a liberal man as not someone she could get along with after just a few dates?
So my question for the readers of this board. Do you think that passionate and opposite political views are usually a deal breaker for a relationship or does it only matter if the woman is the conservative/libertarian? For example, if my husband of 29 years had been an Obama supporter, he would have found the divorce papers in the mail before he got home from the polling place. Do differing and strongly held political views indicate that there are often other problems with the relationship? What say you, board readers? Isabel

> She has no excuse.

Oh COME ON, LS! Don't be so RIGID. People aren't strong just because YOU WANT THEM TO BE! You seem to see the world as a black and white place where everyone just does the perfect thing (your way!) or else they're monsters....

etc etc

The law is particularly aimed at protecting women who currently suffer the worst attacks of this kind, ranging from off-hand comments about their appearance....

Are French women so fragile that French men risk jail if they don't answer "Honey, do these jeans make me look fat?" to their wife's satisfaction?

> French men risk jail if they don't
> answer "Honey, do these jeans make
> me look fat?" to their
> wife's satisfaction

And BTW, what is that?

"Do you think that passionate and opposite political views are usually a deal breaker for a relationship or does it only matter if the woman is the conservative/libertarian?"

Isabel, I think it's the reverse. Most of my liberal friends would never tolerate being married to a conservative.

For people who are passionate about politics, it's usually a dealbreaker. But there always exceptions, like Marlie Matalin and James Carville. She's conservative and he's liberal.

Funny, crid! I just like to give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, but even I will conceed it's not possible in that situation.

The 'benefit of the doubt' isn't always generous and loving. It has horrible costs.

>>And sometimes the news does not conform to your personal biases. In this case, a study was released by a professor at a small college and that release was reported by a news agency (yes...a news agency). Nothing more.

That comment, Conan, was absolutely terrific. (All of it).

Fox News is still total shit & Patrick's bias happens to be dead on.

But what a great comment!

"And BTW, what is that?"

That we don't look fat...unless you want us to look fat. Bonus points if you really like fat...even though we AREN'T fat...but you'd like us to put "some meat on our bones".

My bf does this expertly. He's always saying I'm too thin.

PS: I give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not lying. :)

> Fox News is still total shit

I don't have a tv and wouldn't watch it if I did, but it tickles me shitless how people get upset about Fox News. Hating Fox becomes a central part of their moral identity. Some people pray to God three times a day, some people hate Fox three times a day... Same thing.

Sorry to go back on topic, but I have a couple of thoughts . . . .

Gretchen suggested that parents need to model proper behavior for the kids. Dead on. I'm convinced that while your kids will probably not listen to you (esp when they are teens) they will *absolutely* imitate you. This is possibly the most important piece of parenting advice I've ever received.

Spanking in anger. Never. Ever. Do. That.

Period.

If your kid sees that he/she has *that* much power over you, you as a parent are sunk. Kids will push and push to find out just how far you *can* be pushed. Their emotional security depends, in large part, to them not finding your breaking point.

Personally, I think that if you have a child of the age when they can *really* get under your skin and make you angry, your kid is probably past the point, age wise, where a spanking would have much of an affect. The swats on the ass when your children are old enough to know consequences, but not old enough to reason out more complex issues, or when behavior is impulsive and not thought through (running into the street for example) will work for only so long. Use sparingly, and immediately - but never in anger.

Flynn - the glass of cold water over the head when your child was screaming was brilliant! I almost wish I could take my 16 year old back to the day when that would have been effective - I wish *I'd* thought of that idea then!

>>I don't have a tv and wouldn't watch it if I did, but it tickles me shitless how people get upset about Fox News. Hating Fox becomes a central part of their moral identity.

Actually, it's a topic that seems to tickle you witless, Crid.

What IS the difference between not watching the tv you don't have and not watching the tv even if you did have one?

Your distinction eludes.

The spanking issue. The problem is, there's too much individual variability for any study to make definitive conclusions about how a parent should deal with a particular child. Even if a definitive study showed a small statistical correlation, that information is of no practical use to parents. If a study shows that people who drink coffee are 3% more likely to get cancer than people who don't, does that mean everyone should stop drinking coffee? No, because without any further information on that causative mechanism, it's quite possible that offsetting health benefits would mean that at least some people should drink more coffee. And anyway, I harbor an inherent suspicion towards correlation studies that claim to show results that are just barely out of the noise band, especially when the study authors have previously demonstrated a predisposition towards favoring that result. (If I were czar of scientific research in the U.S., I would immediately de-fund all epistemological studies, and put the money towards actual cause-and-effect research.)

Now my own totally non-scientific testimonial. First of all, in my age group and region of the country where I grew up, spanking was near-universal as a mode of punishment. So, if it did in fact strongly correlate towards deviant behavior as an adult, we'd currently be in the grip of a crime wave the likes of which the world has never seen. So I can reject that out of hand. Having said that, I can state from my sixth-grade memories that it was far more effective with some kids than with others. In school, spanking of boys was a public spectacle; it was usually done in front of the rest of the class. Some boys were utterly embarrassed by it (I was, the one time I experience it), and never gave cause for it to happen again. Other boys, though, regarded it as a badge of honor. For the latter, it clearly had no deterrent value, and it became something of a class joke. Thinking back, I think I can say that that group were, by and large, the ones who grew up to be junkies and small-time hoods.

I think the only real answer is that you have to try things with each child to see what works. I would disregard anyone who says that only one form is the appropriate way to discipline all children. And: Some people are born sociopaths / borderlines. With then, no form of discipline is ever going to be effective. I feel for parents who get stuck with such a child.

Although I have never spanked my kid I can see it in certain situations.

First- The child has to know right from wrong and be willfully defiant.

Second- The spanking must come from a stable adult.

Spankings by dyfunctional, and unstable adults will not do anything but teach the child that violence is a way to enforce your will over someone else.

The key phrase here is "But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems."

Does anyone believe that parents who spank stop when the kid is seven? Those abusers only stop when their child is old enough to swat back.

Spanking only helps parents feel better. Sadly, they do not know how to control behavior with words. Yes, mama bear whacks her cubs, know why? She has not the power of reason.

See Young Children Should never be spanked

Since this is a free-for-all of sorts. I've been wondering where the expression "everything's relative" came from and is it really?

> Your distinction eludes.

I wouldn't watch Fox.

Remember to hate Fox, Jody! Remember to hate it very much.

Ok, so four days ago, I said this:

| Napolitano was right last week, you know.
| It was the perfect example of the Kinsley
| principle: "A gaffe is what happens when
| a politician tells the truth."
|
| She was right because the system did work,
| truly: OTHER PASSENGERS took care of it,
| and government had to stay out of the way.

And this morning, Barry said this:

"This was a screw up that could have been disastrous," the president said during a meeting in the White House situation room, according to the White House media office. "We dodged a bullet but just barely. It was averted by brave individuals not because the system worked and that is not acceptable."

Get the picture? When you're able to take care of your own needs, it means government has "screwed up". That's the lefty paradise.

Never forget it.

"For example, if my husband of 29 years had been an Obama supporter, he would have found the divorce papers in the mail before he got home from the polling place."

I think it depends. If you truly care, it's probably going to be a problem. That's a very, very disparate worldview between conservatives and liberals (notice, I did NOT say democrats and republicans). I would not want to be married to someone who wanted the government to fix everything, because that would mean they weren't capable of doing it themselves, and nothing turns me off more than incompetence. Since men typically marry for reasons other than intellectual discourse, I think it might matter less to a man what his wife was. But given the fact that few people vote, I doubt it's frequently a problem.

"Does anyone believe that parents who spank stop when the kid is seven? Those abusers only stop when their child is old enough to swat back."

I know I got my last one well before age 10. I don't know ANY spankers-other parents when I was a kid, or now-who think it's ok for teens. At that point, they can reason, and also other things like grounding mean more. Does a kindergartner give a rat's ass if they can't go to the movies this weekend? No. Time literally means nothing to little kids. An hour? A week? very little difference. A stinging butt? Better not do that again!

Conan: The article reported the study, the person who did it, and the size of the sample (2,600 with 1/4 of whom reporting never having been physically punished). Of course, you'll need to read the actual study to draw any significant conclusions about it.

Sorry, Conan. Patrick hates Fox is just your "fiddle-dee-dee Scarlett O'Hara" wave of the hand, and all of a sudden, my argument is discounted.

You wish.

Whether Patrick hates Fox doesn't dismiss his arguments. I thought you were better at this than to resort to abusive argumentum ad hominem. You disappoint.

The study is not inclusive. All we know is that there were two sets of test subjects: one set who were spanked as children and another set who weren't.

With that kind of criteria, it's too easy to satisfy the "never spanked" side of the equation. I can show you children who were never spanked...because their mother was a single parent and high on dope all the time.

Never being spanked and never being disciplined are two different things. I want to know if the test subjects on the never spanked side were never spanked because their parents just didn't give a shit, or whether or not their parents found other ways to discipline. What is likely is that the never spanked subjects probably consisted of a variety of test subjects at varying degrees, since they deliberately keep this information from us, and they obviously want to arrive at a "spanking is great" conclusion, as do you, Conan.

The study is wholly inadequate, since we don't know what sort of discipline was practiced (if any) on the never spanked side.

But you already know that.

Patrick hates Fox is just your "fiddle-dee-dee Scarlett O'Hara" wave of the hand, and all of a sudden, my argument is discounted.

Patrick, the hand-waving discount and ad hominem attacks were yours. You discounted the study solely because the linked article was to Fox News.

Fox reported the study the same way other news outlets (even the ones you don't disparage out of hand) have reported these types of studies in the past, which is to say inadequately from a statistical or scientific standpoint.

If you want to draw conclusions or dispute the study, you'll have to read the actual study. I couldn't find a link to a copy of it or even a detailed synopsis.

So, I focused my rebuttal on the reporting of the study and your conclusion Fox was misleading people...because they're Fox and "their purpose is to mislead."

Whether Patrick hates Fox doesn't dismiss his arguments.

That was your only argument, Patrick. Your hatred of Fox must be considered in a rebuttal when your only argument is that Fox reported the study so it must be wrong.

The study is wholly inadequate, since we don't know what sort of discipline was practiced (if any) on the never spanked side.

Of course it's inadequate! It's not real science, it's social science.

The anti-spanking studies I cited were inadequate as well. In fact, short of raising a few thousand children in a bubble, I'm not sure how you can run a definitive test on this subject. Too many "noise" variables.

Both studies (pro- and anti-spanking) used a sample size of roughly 2,500. Given the thousands of variables in personality, psychology, environment, cultural, and socio-economic status of the parents and the offspring, that's gotta be an insufficient sample size.

And let's not even start with the bias of the researchers. The Duke University (liberal) study concluded spanking is bad and the Calvin College (evangelical Christian) study concluded spanking is good, albeit within limits. Anyone see that coming?

In addition, the Duke study was limited to low income children since they were more likely to be spanked and concluded that spanking was responsible for their aggressive behavior. Not their environment? Not their bad diet? Not their poor schooling? Not their single parent status? So, if we stop spanking poor kids, we can cut crime and deliquency? Good to know.

Get the picture? When you're able to take care of your own needs, it means government has "screwed up". That's the lefty paradise.

Heh, what an interesting take. What I read from it is that there are people charged with keeping terrorists off planes, and they failed to do so. Hence, a screw up. Where I come from, this isn't a lefty fantasy, but an expectation that people do their fucking jobs. Obama's real failure in this is that no one has been fired for what happened.

> Where I come from, this isn't a lefty fantasy

Dude, YOU'RE ON THE LEFT. 'K? You think these people can / should / will / and perhaps even DO execute their responsibilities.

Review the sentence again. The arrangement of its components is in no way accidental. There's nothing clever or Freudian at work: "It was averted by brave individuals not because the system worked and that is not acceptable."

"The system" is more important to him than the aversion of a massacre; Our president hates courage.

And whadya know, they're crazy for him in Sweden.

Yes, the system failed to work and that is not acceptable. However, he failed to back up "not acceptable" with, you know, firing Napolitano or any of the other fools who screwed up.

Our president hates courage.

Yes, hates it. Because he expects our employees to do their jobs. Ninny.

Conan: Patrick, the hand-waving discount and ad hominem attacks were yours. You discounted the study solely because the linked article was to Fox News.

Here we go again. Conan, you're either being obtuse or dishonest. I'll let you decide, but you have no other options.

Fox is prone to misleading people. That is a given. My rebuttal came in the paragraph prior to my comment about Fox being prone to mislead.

This is what you would like to ignore: The problem with this is that you're comparing spanked children (who were not spanked into adolescence) with children who were not spanked at all. There's no information given about the children who weren't spanked. Were they merely not spanked, or not disciplined in any way, shape or form? What were the expectations placed on them? What were the consequences, if any, should those expectations not be met?

It's very clear, Conan. No conclusions can be arrived at in this study, because we don't know whether the children were not spanked because they weren't disciplined at all, or did their parents find other means of disciplining them?

Not being spanked and not being disciplined are two different things. It is insufficient to state that the children weren't spanked. Before any conclusions can be drawn, we need to know how those children were disciplined or even if they were disciplined. That they were not spanked is not sufficient. Were their parents merely ignoring their kids' misdeeds or did they find alternative and creative means of dealing with their kids? I support the latter, but not the former.

Super-Nanny, for instance, has never struck a child, but she does find creative means of bringing unmanageable rapscallions into line. Did the parents use tactics like hers, or did they just ignore it when their kids acted up? We need this information before any conclusion can be drawn.

I don't know if and how the Unspanked were disciplined in this study and neither do you. Nonetheless, you're singing the praises of this wonderful study, which is leaving the salient points out.

But you keep right on ignoring it. Latch on to a single sentence, ignore everything else.

Yes, I did. And you know it. You disappoint. Severely. I expect such infantile tactics from Crid, but I didn't expect them from you. You should ashamed of yourself.

"we all knew he bought prostitutes. After his marriage to Denise Richards, we heard she charged him with having a porn addiction"

Actually, he just rented them. And Denise Richards IS a porn addiction.

> Ninny.

Don't hate.

> infantile tactics from Crid

I totally rule your soul.

> And Denise Richards IS a porn addiction.

You gotta point... There's a certain level of cheese celebrity that's indistinguishable from what abject pornography was just a short generation or two ago. There was this magazine rack at the grocery yesterday. Who's "Kendra", and why do we care about "The Kardashian Baby"? Does this have anything to do with OJ?

Nonetheless, you're singing the praises of this wonderful study....

I never once sang "the praises of the study." Go back and actually read what I posted without the bias you seem to bring to everything you watch or read.

My first post was about the fact that Fox reported the study in much the same way other news outlets report similar studies (with no clue about statistics). Unlike you, I don't automatically assume news outlets that I don't agree with are intentionally "misleading" viewers/readers.

In my second post I stated (pretty emphatically) that the study was inadequate...as was the pro-spanking study by the Duke University professor. I took issue with the sample sizes of the studies being too small and the "noise" variables too numerous for the researchers to make the correlations they were making.

The problem with the Gunroe study lies in the inherent weakness of correlative studies. Correlative studies cannot be used to determine cause and effect. The fallacy is that, in both the Gunroe and the Berlin studies, the researchers drew cause and effect conclusions from correlations.

Social scientists tend to draw cause and effect conclusions from correlative studies. But such conclusions are not statistically valid. That's an issue with these types of news stories (whether from the NY Times or Fox News). Journalists, as a rule, don't understand statistics and are too often impressed by them.

Fox is prone to misleading people. That is a given.

All news outlets have a point of view...even the ones that claim not to. You just don't agree with Fox's. That doesn't mean it's a "given" that the network is "prone to misleading."

I don't always agree with NPR or my local morning talk radio hosts (conservative and liberal), but I enjoy listening to them and am even sometimes enlightened by them (I alternate between the three stations). And when I disagree with their conclusions or viewpoint, I don't accuse them of being "prone to misleading."

Fox does have some issues. They don't have the news coverage capability (staff, budget, etc.) of CNN and, possibly because of that, too often use their opinion personalities to host coverage of major news events. MSNBC is starting to make that mistake, too (witness the hash Matthews and Olberman made of the network's last election coverage). And Greta van Sustren needs some serious professional help for her "Missing White Girl" obsession. And don't get me started on Geraldo.

You disappoint. Severely.

You post that every time I'm winning the argument.

Put the kids in front of one of these
http://slashslashdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/01/espn-3d-to-show-soccer-football-more.html

3D TV coming soon.

Conan: You post that every time I'm winning the argument.

You're being dishonest. You have three times refused to acknowledge the point. You insisted my only rebuttal was that it came from Fox News. Considering that was only an afterthought after I made my original point, that is dishonest, and you do know it.

For the fourth time:

It is insufficient to point out that a number of children used in this study weren't spanked. Are you with me, so far? "Not spanked" is not enough information. This marks the fourth time you've ignored this point.

Before a conclusion can be reached that spanking a child is better than not spanking, I want to know how the Unspanked were disciplined, if at all.

Are you there yet?

How were the Unspanked disciplined, if they were disciplined?

Before you can conclude that "Spanked Children May Grow Up to be Happier, More Successful," I need to know what sort of parenting strategies were used on the Unspanked.

Did those parents just basically ignore any wrongdoing their kids did? Or did they give time outs or try other methods of discipline? These conclusions don't tell us.

This study, the way it presents its data, merely compares the Spanked to the Unspanked, without regard to what parenting strategies were employed. A child may have been unspanked because they were passed around through various foster homes. Is it fair to compare such a child to one who was spanked, but grew up in a stable consistent environment?

There. That has been my argument all along. Notice, not once did I mention Fox. Before a study can conclude that spanking is better than not spanking, which is what this news article seems to imply, we should compare the children who were spanked to children who were raised under various parenting strategies that excluded spanking.

DO YOU HEAR ME NOW?

Conan: I never once sang "the praises of the study."

I know. How do you like it when your arguments are willfully misrepresented? You've been blatantly misrepresenting my statements and completely ignoring my arguments, instead latching onto a single statement, so I thought I'd employ the same strategy on you.

But you can't take what you're dishing out? Amazing. Truly. Like, wow. I haven't been this shocked since Boy George came out the closet.

Karen--that blog made my day!

"Why is Charlie Sheen getting less shit for pulling a knife on his wife than Tiger got for simply cheating?"

What I want to know is why isn't Elin being brought up in assault charges?

Crid: > Ninny.

Don't hate.

Your maternal instincts were suppressed at an early age, Crid.

"What I want to know is why isn't Elin being brought up in assault charges?"

Because no one claimed assault and therefore no one can prove assault. He said he was in a CAR ACCIDENT and he clearly was. We can all assume anything, but unless someone claims to be assaulted and/or has no other plausible reason why they're injured, cops aren't going to charge assault.

This particular incident isn't a gender disparity either. If a woman claimed she was in a car accident - and her car was, in fact, smashed up, and witnesses reported seeing her driving prior to the accident, and she makes no claim of abuse, her husband wouldn't be charged with abuse either.

Cops might suspect she's covering up for an abusive husband, but if the car accident explains her injuries, and she makes no such claim of abuse, they simply have no grounds.

"All news outlets have a point of view...even the ones that claim not to. You just don't agree with Fox's. That doesn't mean it's a "given" that the network is "prone to misleading.""

Fox News broadcasts things that are false and/or misleading. This is not a matter of opinion: Mark Foley is a Republican, but Fox News reported that he was a Democrat during the whole sexy-IMs-to-Congressional-pages episode. Michelle Obama is Barack Obama's wife, but Fox News repeatedly referred to her as his "baby mama." Sarah Palin's book tour didn't always draw massive crowds, but Fox News grabbed some old campaign footage of McCain/Palin rallies and presented it as evidence of large crowds at her book signings.

This is on top of the fact that Fox News viewers are more likely to believe things that simply aren't true (say, that we found WMDs in Iraq). I'm not saying the other networks are paragons of media virtue, but Fox occupies a special place in terms of open dishonesty.

"This particular incident isn't a gender disparity either. If a woman claimed she was in a car accident - and her car was, in fact, smashed up, and witnesses reported seeing her driving prior to the accident, and she makes no claim of abuse, her husband wouldn't be charged with abuse either.

Cops might suspect she's covering up for an abusive husband, but if the car accident explains her injuries, and she makes no such claim of abuse, they simply have no grounds."

This was absolutely not the case in San Francisco, where my father and his wife, upon leaving a restaurant with several friends, engaged in a pretty loud political disagreement. A nearby resident called the police with a noise complaint. Note that the resident was completely unaware of the nature of the noise, and just said people on the street were making too much.

The police arrived and immediately handcuffed my father in preparation for arrest on a charge of spousal abuse.

When every witness (and there were several) tried to tell the officer that they were arguing politics, the policeman explained that the law presumed the man guilty in any sort of "altercation" with a woman, and, as a result, he was required to arrest my father. They finally deigned to call in a department "specialist" on spousal abuse, who, upon her arrival, patiently explained to my stepmother that, no matter what her actual experience was, she was really an abused spouse.

Indeed, my father had to spend the night in jail, get bailed out (by my stepmother), hire a lawyer, travel from his hometown back to San Francisco several times for legal-related crap, have a full-blown jury trial, including calling all those witnesses, many of whom also had to travel in from out of state, and watch my stepmother badgered and called a liar by that same "specialist" and the prosecutor, in order to prove his innocence.

Something's backward there.

Are you with me, so far? "Not spanked" is not enough information. This marks the fourth time you've ignored this point.

Before a conclusion can be reached that spanking a child is better than not spanking, I want to know how the Unspanked were disciplined, if at all.

You've been ... completely ignoring my arguments....

Patrick, your argument is based on only one variable, not on the overall statistical validity of the study. Your argument is valid, but weak.

Since we don't have the actual studies, we cannot say whether the researchers ignored or discounted other variables. Let's assume they did.

You're raising the point that the researchers ignored other discipline methods (if any). That's only one contributing variable. They also seem to have ignored socio-economic status, culture, environment, quality of schools, parental status, mental health, diet, and a host of other influences that could have contributed to the behaviors observed.

As correlative studies, the two studies do show something and are valid within that context.

The articles made it seem that the researchers in both these studies are using simple correlations to draw complex cause and effect conclusions, which is flawed at best and invalid at worst.

The studies may have covered or corrected for all of these issues, but the reports do not say that.

That could be a consequence of sending journalism students to report on science and math. They're usually not equipped to do it well.

And, Patrick, when someone agrees with your conclusion, stop insulting them.

That's an awful story, Robin, but it's a bit different from the Woods situation in that a "domestic altercation" was witnessed and reported by others, and that was the basis for the charges. I don't know how loud or rude your father became, but it must've been disturbing enough for someone to call the police.

Still, it doesn't seem like he should've been charged, unless there are details missing. I think it would depend on what the other witnesses (their friends) said on the scene, and sometimes that stays between the officer and the witness.

No one at the Woods home (and there is probably quite a lot of staff in residence) called police to report an argument. A neighbor called to report an accident. That's it.

I'm not saying they weren't fighting, or that she might not have hit him, but only the two of them know and neither are saying.

"Michelle Obama is Barack Obama's wife, but Fox News repeatedly referred to her as his "baby mama."

Really? I want to see proof of that. If you can't provide it, you get to join the 9-11 truthers in the nutjob pile. Because I'm pretty sure that sort of thing would have been broadcasted, loudly, from every other newsource in America, if it had happened.

>>Really? I want to see proof of that.

Momof4,

I picked this bit (below) from the folks at MTV because it also explains the context of the "chyron" - which is the text crawl or caption on the screen -that used the baby mama slur during a Fox News report, in June 2008.

The show's producer has ultimate responsibility for the words used in the crawl caption. Therefore, the words represent Fox News' policy - and can't be dismissed, for example, as "something a guest blurted..."

The MTV quote:

"During an interview Wednesday with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin about attacks against Michelle Obama, Fox News ran a graphic on the lower third of the screen that read, "Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking on Obama's Baby Mama!"

The comment — both crass and, for those who know anything about 21st-century slang, just plain wrong! — has set the political blogs abuzz. To those of us here in the Newsroom accustomed to using chyrons day in and day out in our on-air reporting, we thought we'd take this opportunity to draw your attention to the use (and abuse?) of this television tool.

"News producers generally consider chyrons our friends. That informative text on the lower part of your screen allows us to feed you even more info — from sports scores to AP wire reports to upcoming programs — than what you're seeing and hearing on the upper two-thirds of the screen. Chyrons summarize, condense and crystallize. And in these times of short-attention spans, the quicker you can absorb the news the better. In other words, chyrons are meant to complement the story, not comment on it. Right?

"Maybe. After all, this isn't the first instance of chyron "error" at the hands of Rupert Murdoch's news network. A quick search uncovered two other instances of subversive subtitling. Fox News covered a speech John McCain gave to a conservative group in February 2008 when Mike Huckabee was still the candidate of choice for many conservatives. At one point, McCain was booed, but the ultimate put-down came when Fox News chyroned the Arizona senator a Democrat..."

"Really? I want to see proof of that. If you can't provide it, you get to join the 9-11 truthers in the nutjob pile. Because I'm pretty sure that sort of thing would have been broadcasted, loudly, from every other newsource in America, if it had happened."

I love that I'm being condescended to by someone who a) apparently can't use Google to confirm this story herself (tip: search "fox news michelle obama baby mama" and you'll find everything from the original clips to Fox's apology) and b) doesn't pay enough attention to news media to have been aware of this when it happened.

LovelySoul,

One problem with the idea that no one has filed a complaint. In Florida, police don't need a complaint. If they even remotely suspect domestic violence, then they can arrest on the spot.

If the situation had been reversed, he would have been in jail. There is a clear double standard here. Robin has it right, men are guilty until proven innocent when it comes to just about anything in this country.

I want to see proof of that.

Google "Obama Baby Mama" and "Fox" and you'll get a host of links with screen shots and articles. Sites linked include Huffington Post, CBS News, Salon, and MSNBC.

The screen shots at Huffington Post showed a headline that read, "Outraged Liberals: Stop picking on Obama's baby mama."

Don't know if they were quoting someone or if someone at Fox got cute and forgot to change the headline before it went on the air.

According to the article, Fox has apologized and said a producer used "poor judgement."

Come on guys, it's not like they tried to use falsified documents to influence an election.

"Come on guys, it's not like they tried to use falsified documents to influence an election."

So what do you think Fox's goals were when they misrepresented the party affiliation of a Republican involved a serious sex scandal, or when they identified John McCain as a Democrat? No intent to influence any elections, I'm sure...

>>Fox has apologized and said a producer used "poor judgement."

They should turn that into a permanent screen crawl!

Personally, I'm inclined to attribute those two gaffes to lazy (or incompetent) producers.

Fox identifying McCain as a Democrat certainly did not help Republicans in the election, if it had any impact at all.

And I don't know the timing of the Foley gaffe, so I can't say if it influenced an election.

But I'm pretty sure those two incidents did not occur on a major prime time news magazine show less than two months before a heated presidential election.

Conan, I think I understand your position: When a media outlet you generally agree with does something inappropriate, it's a gaffe. When another media outlet does something inappropriate, it's a sleazy and deliberate attempt to influence the political process. No one is defending CBS here - their lazy and incompetent producers failed to properly authenticate documents that were sent to them. But why do you come down hard on them while being willing to give Fox a pass for their repeated dishonesty? I note you failed to hypothesize regarding Fox's motives; I can only assume it's obvious that they were trying to help the Republican party. (You may recall that pre-nomination, many Republicans hated John McCain quite a bit and regarded him as an enemy. They weren't randomly identifying him as a Democrat for no reason at all.)

I'm exposed to Fox pretty regularly, and the only one of the three (Michelle being called "baby mama", Foley ID'ed as Dem and McCain ID'ed as Dem) that I was aware of was the Foley mixup. Which, if I recall, they corrected rather quickly.

When I do pay attention to the news ticker, it bugs the hell out of me when I find frequent spelling errors. Someone should be proofreading!

Here's an interesting Fox offering for you Conan, from late last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRw5s_04lMw

I call it irresponsibly packaged garbage.

Your verdict?

Thank you, Conan. Regardless of how weak you think my argument is, I find it gratifying that you've finally seen it. And you raise a whole slew of other variables that are overlooked.

Also, we don't see the final results. What we're getting from this study is an "average," if personal happiness of the Spanked and the Unspanked can be quantified. It might be interesting to find out who actually was the happiest. Despite the "average," how do we know that the very happiest, most well-adjusted participant in the entire study wasn't one of the Unspanked with parents who memorized Dr. Benjamin Spock.

Thank you again for finally seeing the point I was trying to make.

No, sleaze is sleaze.

And gaffes are gaffes.

Dan Rather was known to want Kerry to win the election. Mapes was known to want Kerry to win the election. And, lo, at the last minute they obtained documents that could put Kerry over the top. Whether they actually failed to properly authenticate them or the were in on the forgery is not known. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that in their enthusiasm to break a big negative story about George Bush, they failed to properly authenticate the documents.

But, 60 Minutes is a weekly news magazine with long deadlines. Though they are generally working on several stories at once, there is still more time to authenticate and research stories than on a nightly show.

A Fox (or any other 24/7 news channel) broadcast is a daily down-to-the-minute thing with very tight deadlines. Misidentifying the political party of a politician is a mistake that could happen with those kinds of deadlines (although Google is readily available and searches don't really take that long).

Also, I didn't bring up the habit several news outlets are getting into of clearly identifying as Republicans any Republicans caught in a scandal, but neglecting to identify Democrats as Democrats in a scandal.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13220

Wasn't the chyron quoting someone else? When this was first mentioned, it sounded like an on air personality had called her that, but it's a little different if they were quoting another entity or group.

E. Steven, I live in FL, and yes, cops can use discretion, but somebody has to claim abuse or have unexplained injuries. I know of no case in FL where a male has been arrested for DV because his wife had a car accident.

I understand the desire to try to reach into this story and find some gender disparity, but it's not a good example. There was nothing - no complaint or charge of DV made by either of them or anyone around them.

I find it gratifying that you've finally seen it.

Thank you again for finally seeing the point I was trying to make.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

I commented from the beginning on the problems with the study and even pointed out another equally flawed study that reached the opposite conclusion.

> This is not a matter of opinion:

Everybody, please: Hate Fox!

Hate them real hard!

Hate Fox! — Hate Fox! — Hate Fox!

Hate 'em hard 'n fast, hate 'em deep 'n low! Hate 'em in the mornin', in the evenin', hate 'em all the hours of the day... As you're driving to work or school, during breaks on the job... Even set aside a moment of distraction during your sexual encounters! Back off of your partner for second, look her square in the eye, and say "I hate that Fox News!" Then get back at it.

And if she doesn't understand, show her some youtube clips or other listings of the the many failures of Fox, because those are something she can't ignore; the evidence is clear! Then finish humping. But when you're done, as you're wiping everything up, remember to Hate Fox.

The best reason to Hate Fox? They're LIARS!

Now, you personally are far too sophistimicated in your cleverness to be fooled by their transparent chicanery; after all, the entire conservative worldview sleeps in a weave of distortions and failed compassion....

...But it's important for you to worry about how the Fox Lies are perceived by other people! Because other people aren't equipped with your magical principles, you compelling life experiences, or your magical human heart. A personage of your unprecedented excellence has a responsibility to be concerned about the Little People. And you can express that concern by making time to HATE FOX.

It's not like they're playing you for a fool or anything.

Crid, what the hell are you talking about? I don't hate Fox News, but I do note that that they lie and mislead their viewers more than other networks do. Apologies for belaboring the formal logic here, but this does NOT mean that other networks DON'T lie, or that Fox News ONLY tells lies. What it does mean is that we can make a long list of examples of Fox News chicanery, few of which are accompanied by any kind of penalties for the employees involved, whereas the only non-Fox example anyone has come up with is a situation that ended up with several high-profile individuals losing their jobs and their credibility.

More fun with Fox labels - they identified Mark Sanford as a Democrat, too!

They LIE, CB!!!!!!!

Know that!!!!

FOX LIES!!!!!

>>Everybody, please: Hate Fox Hate them real hard!
Hate Fox! — Hate Fox! — Hate Fox!

Crid,
Find something else to say over and over, year in & out, whenever anyone says "gosh, but Fox is a shitty news channel!" will ya? The hate thing you do is getting stale.

Or just fuck off.

Listen, don't worry about me, OK? I understand. Truly I do.

But I want you to worry about the little people. The simple folk. The people who didn't go to college or see all of the big bad world like you did on that one trip after graduation.

You need to be sure and LET THEM KNOW, ok?

Let them know that FOX LIES.

It's important, CB.... Don't let 'em down!

And by the way, have you guys heard about Anne Coulter? She's a cute blond, but she TELLS LIES! It's goddamndest thing....

If you're not interested in having a rational, evidence-based discussion of the issue of the reliability of various media sources, Crid, that's fine. But for Pete's sake, you're not exactly making Fox News viewers look good when you ignore actual facts and arguments in favor of emotional and bizarrely speculative rants.

> a rational, evidence-based discussion

Right! I keep forgetting... Amy's blog is a home to scientists! And scientists HATE Fox. Because Fox ignores the "actual facts", and as we've seen in recent times, no scientist would ever do that.

Anyway, be sure and worry about the reliability of the "various media sources", because your fabulous science-mind has powers of discernment that the little people don't have. It's not like you're wallowing in a congestive state of infantile anger, or struggling to make social distance from lesser mortals merely by watching TV, or anything like that. Your motives are pure.

So, like, everybody Hate Fox.

I call it irresponsibly packaged garbage.

If she gets better, great for her! And if the doctor is able to help others with the same issue, good.

Hers was an exceptionally rare reaction to a vaccination (the rarity was stated several times in the story).

I would hate to see the anti-vaccination crowd (led by a former nude model with no scientific training) use this woman's situation to further their cause of limiting (or eliminating) lifesaving childhood vaccines, but I fear they will.

But an example of Fox being irresponsible? I've seen the same types of "saved from death thanks to alternative medicine" stories on other news networks as well.

Hell, it's a staple of Lifetime "based on a true story" movies...when they're not showing vulnerable white girls being victimized by the men they married.

This is my 3rd attempt to get this comment up, my computer keeps being unable to access server when I post. Grrr.

Mea Culpa, CB, although why I should have to google to prove your assertion escapes me.

Now that I have read it, apparently michelle called Obama her "baby daddy" pretty publicly prior, so I think Fox gets a pass, although it was stupid. If for no other reason that the ignorance that damn phrase represents.

Whether you're liberal or not, you need to be afraid of the attacks on Fox. You need to be very afraid. A country where the government attacks news outlets is not safe for anyone.

Seriously, why the freakin heck aren't my comments posting? No spam notice, just nada. Freackin' A.

Ok, finally. Sorry.

>>Hers was an exceptionally rare reaction to a vaccination (the rarity was stated several times in the story).

Genuinely impressed you watched, Conan.

However, it was more likely the poor woman was suffering from a psychogenic disorder, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the vaccine dose. (A disorder originating in the mind, tho' the symptoms can be vile).

Fox did not make clear the victim had first rejected this professional diagnosis.

Plus the heavily featured doctor who gave her the miracle cure has a "problematic" - to put it carefully- reputation.

(I have the links available, of course.)

Lifetime movie plots are one thing; news reports quite another.

> I have the links available

'This, they can't deny!'

I'd just like to say that "sophistimication" is a very amusing (non)word.

>>I'd just like to say that "sophistimication" is a very amusing (non)word.

Yeah, Crid must love The Simpsons, Robin!
(Fox IS good for cartoons).

"Bart, this is a highly sophistimacated doowhackey." --Homer Simpson

Crid, my man, you have done some of your best work this week! But wait... isn't Ann Coulter a tranny? After all, that's what everyone keeps telling me... not that it's supposed to matter, after all, trannies have rights too and all and we're all so sensitive to that...

Ann Coulter a tranny?

She is rather mannish, isn't she?

> must love The Simpsons

I saw one episode, circa 1992: Father and son were looking through discarded tickets in the parking lot of a horse track for lost winners. It was cute, but not worth another half-hour of life. Fake-funny voices just aren't that amusing.

> isn't Ann Coulter a tranny?

People hate Ann Coulter, she weeps all the way to the bank.

>>I saw one episode, circa 1992: Father and son were looking through discarded tickets in the parking lot of a horse track for lost winners. It was cute, but not worth another half-hour of life. Fake-funny voices just aren't that amusing.

So your "sophistimication" wasn't a conscious borrowing from the show then, Crid?

Just an example of unwitting pop cultural creep!

It's not that remarkable: They can borrow from me whenever they want.

Conan: Are you deliberately being obtuse?

No, but I think you are.

Conan: I commented from the beginning on the problems with the study and even pointed out another equally flawed study that reached the opposite conclusion.

Remember this statement:

That was your only argument, Patrick.

After you finally acknowledged, after four posts, it was NOT my only argument. In fact, it wasn't an argument at all. It was a statement that since I had proven that the study revealed far too little to be considered conclusive in anything, I'm unsurprised that Fox would forward an obviously flawed study to forward a conclusion they like. That was not an argument. My argument was that we know too little about the experience of the Unspanked.

And you continue: Your hatred of Fox must be considered in a rebuttal when your only argument is that Fox reported the study so it must be wrong.

Again, it was not my only argument. In fact, it wasn't an argument at all. The bias that needs to be looked at is not mine. It's yours. You obvious adore Fox News. So much so, that any criticism of them makes you discount everything someone says, unable to hear anything but "This person hates Fox."

By the way, I didn't say I hated Fox. You did. I don't trust them.

By the way, CB, regarding their reporting of Sanford as a Democrat, they do that every time a Republican does something they wish to demonize. They've done the same thing to Mark Foley (reporting him as a Democrat), and to John McCain.

(I'm pretty sure CD's intent was satiric...)

(And of course, Whatever jumped up for a Pavlov Biscuit...)

I was having a little fun quoting one of the Austin Powers movies. I don't consider Coulter's "ideas" worth comment. See Crid's point above about her milking people's outrage all the way to the bank.

> I don't consider Coulter's "ideas"
> worth comment.

Yes yes, it's all so beneath you. And yet, in the moment (minutes ago), you were compelled....

The truth about all these silly little TV people is that when you ignore them, they cease to exist. Nobody believes this, because it's too GRATIFYING to push a button, fire up the TV, and have your emotions so reliably stroked.

Same with NPR, except that the government gets a piece of the action.

Meh. Once a encountered excerpts from her book defending McCarthy it was clear she existed to be provocative rather than insightful. Not interesting.

You both read too much into me riffiing, perhaps poorly, off of Cousin Dave's comment. But think what you will.

> you both read too much
> into me riffiing

As Dr. Evil once put it: Riiiiiiiiiiiiight-uh.

Whatever, dude.

The Goddess writes: Clearly, Coulter's ideas affect you deeply or you wouldn't bother saying she looks like a man.

I doubt it. As one who regulars on a politically charged message board, I've heard the attacks on "Tranny Annie" with her "melon-sized Adam's Apple" ad nauseum. Whatever is probably echoing a pretty common low-blow.

I did once challenge one of the liberals who referred to her as such, "Aren't liberals supposed to be supportive of the transgendered? Why are you using transgendered as an insult?"

You obvious[ly] adore Fox News.

I rarely watch Fox News and am indifferent to their success or failure as a network.

Fox News does have issues with details - as well as the other issues that I've already mentioned.

The closing comment in your post was "The title, in fact, is very misleading. But it comes from Fox, and their purpose is to mislead. Either they are not sharing the details of this study, or it's a very poorly done study."

The title which you found so misleading? "Study: Spanked Children May Grow Up to Be Happier, More Successful." Obviously they studied at the Goebbels school of the big lie.

And the Fox article didn't share much in the way of details (sample size only), most likely because the press release announcing the study didn't share them. The Telegraph reported the same study in a longer article, but with an equal lack of details.

Longer reports in other news channels on Berlin's anti-spanking study were also devoid of the details of that study (sample size only).

Patrick, you didn't characterize Fox as sloppy, lazy, or tabloidesque...all of which are supportable (and not emotion-based) accusations.

Instead, you hyperbolized that Fox's "purpose is to mislead," as if Fox is some Riefenstahl-esque propoganda machine which exists solely to deceive the American public.

That's not a very good argument, but it is a convenient tool that allows you to dismiss out of hand anything Fox reports that you don't like. And that's what I took issue with.