Bombshell study reveals why a controversial parenting practice should be banned
The "bombshell" study was a damp squib. The only evidence it marshalls for the claim that spanking is harmful comes from a 2016 meta-analysis. So hardly new.
A meta-analysis depends for its credibility on its inclusiveness but many studies were excluded from this analysis so its conclusions are on shaky grounds. I have seen from meta-analyses involving my own work how exclusions can give misleading results.
What to include and exclude is often a judgment call and it is too easy to exclude studies with awkward conclusions. There can be no doubt that the authors of this study had an attachment to a particular conclusion so that had to be a real problem in this case
Another problem is that a meta-analysis perforce had to define spanking rather broadly. But all spanking is not the same. It can range from a light tap to a damaging blow. And that difference has to be attended to if generalizable conclusions are to be drawn
I could go on to note further weaknesses in the study but I think I have said enough
Experts have renewed calls for the smacking of children to be outlawed in Australia, following dozens of other countries which have outlawed the controversial punishment.
A comprehensive new study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health has found children who were smacked by their parents can go on to develop serious mental health disorders.
University of Melbourne professor of psychiatry Sophie Havighurst, lead author of the report Corporal Punishment of Children in Australia, said the findings made a case for the practice to be banned.
Prof. Havinghurst said the research reviewed 111 countries looking at the long-term effects of smacking and found negative effects present in children in 110 of those countries.
The study concluded that smacking had an impact of a child's developing brain and that Australia should not be lagging behind the rest of the world - where the disciplinary practice is not illegal unless excessive force is used.
Using physical force on children is currently banned in 65 countries including New Zealand, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands
Australian jurisdictions have varying laws when it comes to the divisive parental issue.
In NSW, physical punishment should not be painful for more than a brief moment, and children cannot be hit on their heads or necks.
In Victoria there is no legislation surrounding parents applying physical punishment to their kids while in various other states it must be considered 'reasonable under the circumstances'.
The latest paper reported that six in 10 people aged between 16 to 24 said they had experienced four or more incidents of corporal punishment.
Their findings also coincide with the Australian Child Maltreatment Study, which showed that 61 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds who were smacked as kids were nearly twice as likely to develop anxiety and depression later in life.
Professor Daryl Higgins, director of the Australian Catholic University's Institute of Child Protection Studies, said the older generation was more likely to believe smacking was effective.
38 per cent of those over 65 considered it necessary, compared with just 15 per cent of 16-24-year-olds agreeing it was appropriate.
The paper also found countries such as New Zealand that had changed laws and ran public education campaigns saw decreasing levels of corporal punishment
**********************************************
Progressives Are Declaring War on Basic Economics
The United States is fighting wars on multiple fronts. Aside from our involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East, a hot war is being waged against economics. This war is being championed by the progressives in the Democrat Party, backed in large part by left-wing sociologists and political scientists. Progressives deny basic economic principles and theory. They deny that incentives matter, that markets work better than government dictates, that scarcity and opportunity costs exist, that the laws of supply and demand are operative, that benefit-cost analyses have merit, and that economic efficiency makes consumers and producers better off.
Incentives matter. Remove penalties for looting and carjacking and more looting and carjackings occur. Establish sanctuary cities and free college tuition for illegal immigrants and expect increased flows of illegals crossing the border. Increase compensation for the unemployed and more unemployment occurs. To deny that incentives matter is to deny inductive and deductive logic. Progressives admittedly march to the music of a different logic. What the tune is isn’t clear.
Scarcity means that resources are limited. Getting more of something requires having less of something else. Economists call the best alternative use of resources its “opportunity cost.” Larry Summers, the well-respected Democratic economist and former secretary of the treasury, wondered if the billions of dollars proposed to be given to individuals who have college debt might be better spent elsewhere (or perhaps not spent at all). His question was roundly ignored by progressives.
Understanding opportunity cost is essential for rational decision-making. Imagine a family operating without regard to opportunity cost. Little Sally might be given her heart’s desire while the rest of her family goes without food. No rational family would operate like this. Nor should any nation.
Government commands destroy the benefits from markets. Progressives despise markets. Markets privately allocate resources based on supply and demand through which the costs of production and consumer preferences interact to set prices and efficient levels of output. Progressives think markets produce the “wrong” things. The old Soviet Union and Chinese command economies announced “five-year plans” that dictated the production of nearly everything (including the number of nails). Shortages, inefficiency, and economic stagnation followed. Thinking that the geniuses in Washington know best how to allocate resources will set us on the same road.
Economic efficiency raises living standards. Progressives think “efficiency” is a dirty word. They either don’t understand the concept or choose to neglect it because it interferes with support for their public-policy whims. Economic efficiency incorporates a number of basic concepts, and an important one is to avoid producing something that costs more in resources than the value of the final product. Markets generally take care of this. If progressives want something, they don’t care how much it costs or how wasteful it is. Take the Green New Deal, for example.
If progressives deny economics, what criteria do they use for decision-making? They rely heavily on the vaguely defined concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-acknowledged socialist and progressive, was recently asked by Bill Maher to define equity. He was stumped. It is best not to define terms that will get you into obvious contradictions. Take the proposed forgiveness of college debt. How does this square with the diversity, equity, and inclusion criteria? It more than smacks of a crass giveaway to buy votes.
The University of Michigan sociologist Elizabeth Popp Berman acknowledges the war against economists and their way of thinking. In her book, Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy, she claims that economists are the chief obstacles to achieving progressive policies. She hopes that the progressives in Congress will be joined by “a range of experts and activists including economists not committed to the economic style [of thinking].” However, is it reasonable to call someone who does not think like an economist an economist?
To be clear, economists can disagree on public policy. But the economic way of thinking allows for a rational debate. Professor Berman is correct that the economic way of thinking has been a chief obstacle to progressive policies. It has saved us from traveling down F. A. Hayek’s “road to serfdom.”
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14490&omhide=true&trk=title
*************************************************Non-Woke ‘Super Mario Bros. Movie’ Stuns Hollywood After Hitting Massive New Milestone
Defying expectations, the “Super Mario Bros. Movie” has become the first film of 2023 to cross the $1 billion mark at the global box office, four weeks after its release.
The adaptation of the renowned Nintendo video game is the first movie based on a video game to achieve such extraordinary success.
According to Variety, the Chris Pratt-led film has grossed $490 million in North America and $532 million internationally as of Sunday.
It is only the fifth film to reach this significant milestone since the pandemic, joining the likes of “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Avatar: The Way of Water,” “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” and “Jurassic World Dominion.”
Released during the long Easter holiday on April 5th, the movie quickly surpassed Marvel’s highly anticipated “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.”
**************************************************
State OKs Bans on Transgender Treatments for Minors, TikTok in Bid to Keep Kids Safe
Montana has passed a bill banning transgender treatments such as cross-sex hormones and gender-reassignment surgeries on minors and also banned the Chinese app TikTok. Both are intended to protect children. (Photo: Catherine Falls Commercial/Getty Images)
Montana recently passed a bill banning transgender treatments on minors.
“It’s very important that we protect our children, especially physically, from these treatments that are permanent,” Montana state Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe says.
“There’s not been a lot of studies done on the long-term effects of these [treatments],” the Republican lawmaker said, adding “but we also see a lot of detransitioners, or people who have regretted it because they were not given the adequate help that they needed and the treatment that they needed. They were just told to have surgery.”
The Montana legislation, banning treatments such as cross-sex hormones and gender-reassignment surgeries, passed late last month, was signed into law Friday. The bill gained national attention after it became the source of conflict between a transgender Montana state representative and lawmakers who backed the bill.
State Rep. Zooey Zephyr—a Democrat who is a man, but “identifies” as a woman—told his colleagues there would be “blood on your hands” if they voted in support of the transgender treatment ban. The remarks got Zephyr banned from the Montana House floor.
Montana state Rep. Braxton Mitchell, a Republican, told Fox News Digital, “Not only has my colleague violated decorum, but has broken the trust given by the other 99 representatives.”
In the interest of protecting children, the Montana House also recently passed a bill that requires schools to notify parents of human sexuality instruction in the classroom.
Now, parents are notified of human sexuality instruction 10 days to 48 hours in advance, giving them the opportunity to opt their child out of the instruction and to ask for detailed information on what is being taught, Seekins-Crowe told The Daily Signal.
In addition to passing legislation aimed at protecting kids from transgender treatments and explicit sexual information, Montana also recently became the first state to pass a bill banning the popular video app TikTok.
“I am glad that I voted for that legislation, especially because of how dangerous TikTok is, not just as a platform, but also as a national security issue,” Seekins-Crowe says.
TikTok is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, which is headquartered in Beijing and is subject to Chinese law requiring companies to make data available to the government. American citizens and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have voiced concerns over the ability of the Chinese government to collect and store data on Americans through TikTok.
Seekins-Crowe says she is looking forward to Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signing the TikTok ban into law “very soon.”
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment