Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Childcare kids are more naughty
This guy does not seem to know much about the research literature on his subject. What he is almost certainly detecting is that kids in childcare are more stressed than children cared for in a loving home. Maybe he should Google "cortisol" and "childcare" together in order to educate himself
CHILDREN in childcare may be learning to throw tantrums from other youngsters, according to the author of a study that found children looked after by their parents are better behaved. Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University said children kept home were a "couple of months" ahead when it came to good behaviour. "They seem to be a smidgin better behaved but the effect isn't big," Professor Leigh said. Children in childcare were more likely to throw temper tantrums, responded worse to unfamiliar circumstances and gave up more easily, he said.
His research, which used data from the Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children, will be presented at the Growing Up in Australia conference this week. The survey followed 5000 children born in 2004. When they were aged between two and three, parents were questioned about their behaviour. "Perhaps kids who are only exposed to their parents do not learn that if you pick up a heavy toy and throw it across the room, it will make a loud noise and utilise attention," he said.
However, it was not clear whether childcare caused the behaviour or whether it was something to do with the sort of parents of the children.
Professor Leigh found children from wealthier and well-educated backgrounds were the most likely to behave badly, while children in centres with higher staff ratios tended to perform better.
But Professor Leigh cautioned parents not to rush into changing their care arrangements. "This isn't research that should cause parents to pull their kids out of day care. My wife and I certainly won't take our son out of daycare," he said.
The Left’s War Against the Boy Scouts
by Dennis Prager
Watching the left attempting to undo the greatness of American medicine and dismantle the unprecedentedly powerful American economic engine built almost entirely on non-governmental entrepreneurial effort, I realize once again that the left is far better at destroying than building.
I first realized this as I watched the left — and here I sadly include the whole organized left from liberal to far left — do whatever it could to destroy one of the most wonderful organizations in American life, the Boy Scouts of America . From Democratic city governments to the New York Times and other liberal editorial pages to the most destructive organization on the left, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), there has been the most concerted effort to break the Boy Scouts.
When challenged about this, fellow Americans on the left respond that this is a false accusation, that they have no desire to destroy the Boy Scouts, only to coerce the organization into accepting as scouts and scout leaders boys and men who have announced they are gay.
This is not an honest response, however, because the left is in fact doing whatever it can to destroy the Boy Scouts until the Boy Scouts change their policy on gays. The left-wing position is that if the Boy Scouts do not change a policy that has been in place since the inception of the organization, they do not deserve to exist.
Therefore it is entirely accurate to state that the left wishes to destroy the Boy Scouts as that organization now exists. No matter how much good the Boy Scouts have done and continue to do for millions of boys, for the left, all this good amounts to nothing.
For the left in this instance, as in most instances, the attitude is: Destroy the imperfect in order to build the perfect. There is no left-wing Boy Scouts. The left knows best how to crush the non-left Boy Scouts, but it has never made a boys organization of its own.
Likewise with individual lives devoted to the poor. Sure, there are secular and left-wing organizations devoted to the poor, but the individuals who give up their lives to the poorest in America and the world, like the members of Salvation Army at home and the Mother Teresas abroad, are overwhelmingly religious (and to be fair, Christian).
I just spent Thanksgiving week in Zambia and benighted Zimbabwe with my teenage son to help an organization give out mosquito nets and seed to the poorest of the poor. The organization that brought us there, Rock of Africa, is a Christian organization that works with the destitute in Zimbabwe . As with a larger, also Christian-based, organization that I have worked with for nearly two years (full disclosure: It periodically sponsors my radio show), Cure International, all those affiliated with the organization get nothing or almost nothing for their work.
Why do the doctors who work at, and those who build, Cure International’s hospitals in places like Honduras , Uganda and Afghanistan and the volunteers of Rock of Africa do their work? Because they believe that their faith demands that they do (I have no religious agenda here, as I am Jewish, not Christian). The number of Christians and Christian organizations doing self-sacrificing work around the world is large and impressive. Now, there are also secular organizations doing magnificent work in the poorest parts of the world — Doctors Without Borders is a well-known example — but I would bet that the number of religious individuals who give their lives for virtually no pay to the worst off in America and around the world is far greater than the number of irreligious individuals.
And just as there is no left-wing Boy Scouts, there is no Salvation Army built and manned by people with left-wing values. Nor has there ever been a left-wing country as magnanimous, as willing to die for others, as opportunity-giving to people from all over the world, as America , whose greatness comes from its traditional secular values and its Judeo-Christian values. As with the Boy Scouts, the left can bring an America down, but it cannot build one.
Photographer questioned by British police under anti-terror laws... for taking 'too many' pictures of town centre Christmas lights
The rabid war on photography continues
An amateur photographer taking pictures of Christmas lights was questioned by police under anti-terror laws. Andrew White, from Brighton, was taking pictures in a busy town centre in nearby Burgess Hill when he was spotted and followed by two Police Community Support Officers. They stopped him and asked why he had been taking pictures and if he was a professional photographer.
Mr White, 33, asked why they wanted to know and was told it was to do with counter-terrorism legislation. Police said he was stopped for 'taking too many photographs in a busy shopping area'. The PCSOs demanded his personal details, including his name and address.
Mr White said: 'I had nothing to hide so I just provided the details. Now I'm concerned about where those details are going to end up. 'I only took one or two photos but even if I had taken more, who are they to say what is too many? 'I don't think taking too many photos in the street warrants being considered some kind of terrorist threat, which is what they were suggesting. 'I think the money spent on getting PCSOs to waste my time and harass me in the street could be better spent elsewhere.' Mr White said the officers were polite but they insisted that they had to take his details because they had stopped him.
A Sussex Police spokesman said they spoke to Mr White because they were concerned he was taking too many photographs in a busy shopping area. The spokesman said: 'They were acting in good faith, balancing individual liberty against the need to ensure public safety.' Under the 2002 Police Reform Act, PCSOs have the power to demand the name and address of a person suspected of committing a criminal offence or for antisocial behaviour.
Australia: Yet more government meddling in people's lives proposed
Walk the dog or face time behind bars
PET owners could be punished for not walking their dogs, under radical new laws being proposed by the RSPCA. Under the legislation, they would have to regularly exercise dogs, ensure animals are not kept chained up and give their pets adequate food and water.
If the proposal becomes law, dog and cat owners across Australia would face prosecution, fines of up to $12,000 fines for animal cruelty and magistrates could consider jail in extreme circumstances.
Dr Hugh Wirth, head of RSPCA Victoria, is one of four experts the Federal Department of Agriculture's welfare division has appointed to draft national animal welfare guidelines. "The draft will tell people what they have to do rather than what they want to do," Dr Wirth said. "The new standards would be regulatory, therefore a breach of the standards is a breach of the law." The proposed new laws are designed to formalise the national code, which states dogs must be walked at least once a day.
Dr Wirth said jail sentences would not be handed out for a first offence, but it would something available for magistrates to consider. "I would be amazed if a magistrate ordered jail time on the first offence, but, like every other offence under cruelty legislation, jail is an option," Dr Wirth said.
The proposed laws would be designed to help overcome the problems animal inspectors have had penalising bad owners. The working party is designed to create a national standard, but ultimately the laws would be have to be passed by State Governments.
A spokesman for the federal Department of Agriculture said the working group was one of six set up to look at animal welfare. "One of the goals of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy is to develop national standards and guidelines for the care of different kinds of animals," the spokesman said. "The states and territories are ultimately responsible for legislating for animal welfare, not the Commonwealth."
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.