parenting : Duthie On...

In answer to a request from a Democrat in western Pennsylvania to "stop these abortions," Obama reportedly said:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

"punished with a baby?" Could it be, perhaps, that part of the reason folks like Obama and his ilk find abortion acceptable is that they're able to say such a thing out loud? Babies are not punishment, nor are they fashion accessories, nor mere inconveniences to be swept away when someone "make[s] a mistake." If Obama thinks it's unfair to "punish" his daughters with a baby for making a mistake (I'm guessing the mistake in Obama's book is in not using protection, as opposed to, I don't know, choosing abstinence), why is it that he feels it's OK to punish the baby with death?

And what does it say for Obama's trust in his daughters (or lack thereof) that he does not believe that he can teach them to refrain from sex in their teens? That he's really concerned about them getting a sexually transmitted disease at age 16?

Beyond that, I'm not aware of any abstinence-only sex ed program anywhere that prevents parents from giving their children whatever information about sex they believe is appropriate. There's no state compulsion preventing you from "giv[ing] them information." Unlike other sex ed programs, which may or may not provide the option for parents to opt out their kids if they disapprove of the curriculum. Funny how the Democrats claim to be pro-choice, except when the choice in question conflicts with the indoctrination or program they want.

Lastly I can't help but be appalled at all of the commenters falling all over themselves congratulating Obama on his great answer to the question. So full of nuance. Sad.

Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

The intrusion of the state into the family continues unabated:

As doctors struggle to eradicate polio worldwide, one of their biggest problems is persuading parents to vaccinate their children. In Belgium, authorities are resorting to an extreme measure: prison sentences.

Two sets of parents in Belgium were recently handed five month prison terms for failing to vaccinate their children against polio. Each parent was also fined 4,100 euros ($8,000).

And if you don't think it can happen in the U.S., read on:

In the U.S. state of Maryland, prosecutors and school officials in one county threatened truancy charges against parents who failed to vaccinate their children. The measure sharply reduced the number of unvaccinated children although nobody has been charged.

I'm not necessarily an opponent of vaccinations in general. It's pretty clear that some vaccines make sense, and have done much to improve public health. But I do not support the state making the decision for parents. Ultimate responsibility for the health and welfare of children falls to the parents, not to the state.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has passed a law that mandates that girls must be vaccinated against human papilloma virus (HPV), on the dubious grounds that the vaccine will prevent many cases of cervical cancer. There are several problems with this, the most important being that HPV is not spread through casual contact, so should not be considered a health risk for schoolchildren. Those who demand mandatory vaccination against HPV seem to assume that all children will become sexually active before reaching an age where they can decide for themselves if the vaccine makes sense. There's also the fact, highlighted in this presentation prepared by an official of the Virginia Department of Health, that Merck, the maker of the Gardasil HPV vaccine, lobbied hard for the mandate.

Generally, I think that pharmaceutical companies are making products that have a positive impact on our health and longevity. But allowing the state the power to mandate the use of particular drugs or vaccines has the potential to distort the incentives these companies operate on, giving them an incentive to use the state to force their products on the public, rather than have those products compete in the market on the basis of their effectiveness. That's a recipe for disaster, and something we should all be concerned about.

Parents may be jailed over vaccinations - Yahoo! News

This is just plain outrageous:

They’re watching you right now.

They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox [team stats] game.

They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.

They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it.

They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the Nanny State.

I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.

Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.

“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”

“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stasher, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”

I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?”

She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.

“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.”

Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she’s fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.

We’re not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.

The idea that the AAP has any business routinely interfering in the relationship between parents and their kids, much less suggesting that doctors should put kids in the position of reporting on their parents perfectly legal behavior is breathtakingly arrogant. Unless there's some evidence of abuse or problematic behavior reported by the child, a doctor simply has no business asking such questions.

Any doctor who showed such a blatant disregard for proper boundaries would no longer be mine, or my child's. It's one thing to make an effort to protect children where there's some evidence of a threat. It's quite another to treat parents as though they are criminal threats until proven otherwise.

Doc, what’s up with snooping? - BostonHerald.com

You gotta figure Al's not thrilled with this, three days before the Live Earth carbon orgy:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

Maybe, instead of trying to "save the earth" and tell all us rubes how to live our lives, AlGore should try spending a little more time being a father. Then perhaps Al III wouldn't feel quite such a strong need to act out. Anyone with half a brain could recognize that the above is a cry for help. It's easy to see the humor in this regarding Al II's crusading, but on some level you have to feel pity for Al III...it has to suck having a father who appears to be more concerned with the planet (or at least with his own political ambitions and reputation, since that's what this is all really about) than with his own son.

Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car | U.S. | Reuters

Excerpt: 

Not only do I believe that trying to take the wildness out of boys is a doomed social experiment, but I'm certain that genetic scientists will eventually discover that males carry the Cowboy Gene. That's my name for whatever is responsible for all the wrestling in my house, and the dunking during bath time, and my 5-year-old's insistence on wearing his silver six-shooters to Wal-Mart in order to protect our grocery cart. I only pray that when the Cowboy Gene is discovered, some well-meaning utopian doesn't try to transform it into a Tea Party Gene.

Read the whole thing...it's wonderful.

Source: OpinionJournal - Taste

[2nd in a series]

Kids will do most anything to avoid getting in trouble. Playing dumb is one way they attempt to do this. Another means for evading responsibility is blaming others.

Growing up an only child, I was unable to take full advantage of this technique, which works best when you have a younger sibling. Break a lamp? No problem, just blame your little brother.

This phenomenon was explored recently in the Disney movie Meet the Robinsons, which features a bad guy who says:

Let’s see, take responsibility for my actions or blame you…Ding ding ding! Blame you!

And we also see this all around us, from celebrities who blame their drug abuse or failed marriages on the stress of being famous (rough life), or those who blame crime on poverty.

Unlike playing dumb, which usually fails as a means for evading responsibility, blaming others is all too successful sometimes, particularly as we've become more and more a society that celebrates victimhood. In other words, while kids take the simple approach ("I didn't do it...Jimmy did!"), adults take the more sophisticated approach ("It's not my fault...society made me do it!"). But either way, it's ultimately the same phenomenon, blaming others.

Being a parent, you start to notice the origins of certain types of behaviors.

Kids aren't stupid, and like most of us, their gut instinct when they get in trouble is to figure out how to avoid responsibility for what they've done. This is the first in a series of posts on the rules by which they do this.

The first rule of evading responsibility is to play dumb.

If you're a parent, you've experienced this. Your kid pinches their brother or sister, who starts to cry. You scold the older sibling and ask: "Why did you pinch your brother!?!" The answer, of course, is "I don't know," as if somehow that will let them get away with it.

What's interesting is that even though this tactic rarely works as a kid, we still often use it as adults. While I can't speak for women, I'm sure most men will identify with this:

Picture yourself driving along the highway, in a hurry to get somewhere. You get pulled over by a state trooper, who walks up to your window and says: "Do you have any idea how fast you were going?"

Of course, you answer: "Why no, officer...was I speeding?"

Now you know full well that you were doing 80 in a 65, you just hope that the officer will take pity on such a poor moron as yourself and not ticket you. Unsurprisingly, this tactic works as poorly for adults as it does for kids.