MeatballsMom

Lawsuit seeks to take 'God' out of inaugural Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural - CNN.com "Some atheists want Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony to leave out references to God and religion. In a lawsuit, the plaintiffs demand the words "So help me God" not be added to the end of the oath of office. The plaintiffs say they are being forced to choose between not watching the inauguration or watching endorsements of "purely religious notions." "President-elect Barack Obama will use the Bible Abraham Lincoln used for his inauguration." Seriously??? Well I want all rap music to be banned because it degrades women, talks about exploiting others, killing others, doing or selling drugs..etc...etc...Because when I am driving in my car I have to listen to that crap and it offends me--so, do I then decide to drive and be subjected to that crap or stay home, not go to work and live off of unemployment and welfare??? I suppose my question is WHERE IS THE LINE??? Everyone talks about the Constitution and their Constitutional Rights when it suits them, but dismisses other parts if they do not like it.......WTH:cursing:

Is Psychological Abuse the Lesser of Two Evils When Compared to Physical Abuse? Ah, the question to ponder even though physical abuse has its hands in psychological abuse as well. I suppose the difference is the mere thought of "being simply" (not used lightly) psychologically abused versus the physical/ sexual abuse and the psychological torture that comes with it. Then again, when you are born into a family of not only physical but sexual abuse, do you simply look at the plain psychologial abuse as "nothing" and thank God your not being beat or sexually abused? When you date a guy in high school who beats the hell out of you for 3.5 years, are you doing it out of desperation of love or the conditioning of your behavior/life when you were younger at the hands of a parent(s) who is suppose to nurture, love and protect you? Is this merely a pattern of what is to be? With that, should there be laws for those who wish to "become" parents? Seems abusrd, right? But in a day-of-age where we are legalizing gay marriages and attempting to legalize prostitution, does it not or should it not call into question why one of the most difficult and meaningful JOBS in this entire world be given some type of QUALIFICATIONS? Why not, we legalize and put laws on everything else, right? I suppose that question should be best asked of the 896,000 children last year that were atually found to have been victims of abuse or neglect out of the 2.6 million reports filed—an average of more than 2,450 children per day, or how about the nearly FOUR children that die EVERYDAY due to abuse and/or neglect-they cannot even speak for themselves anymore. Why do we seek to spend so much time and money on the things that or less important and not a guarantee in this country's constitution, yet we fail to spend as much if not more time and money on those who cannot defend themselves?

Oh trust me, I am an ex Sheriff's Deputy in Texas and am ALL too familiar with the petty complaints we had to take!

Thats cool-- I was just curious on some of the double standards I see from society as to what is important what is not, what is worthy of a cause what is not, who/what is more important to protect and who/what is not..etc...etc.. I honestly do not care if a man has two or three wives or if a woman has two or three husbands so long as there are ZERO consequences that come out of those relationships that SOCIETY (meaning US) must spend our time and money taking care of.

So would it be safe to "assume" then that they should not regulate abortions either?

I agree with getting the laws straight with respect to the above and the removal of the children in Texas. I also wonder why it is that our country is so open to accept homosexual marriage but not polygamy (no, I am not a polygamist just playing devils advocate).

And I suppose that was part of my point-The Government medling and or setting tones with certain subjects, ideas etc.etc. where they should not be. The other part was the abuse itself. We spend soo much time and money advocating rights for homosexual marriage, abortions, making prostitution legal or even giving illegal immigrants more rights than their victims, but we fail to help those who are too young and vulnerable to help themsleves. More importantly, they are suffering at the hands of those who are "suppose" to protect them. My hangup is the returning of these neglected and/or abused children to their parents not once, not twice but multiple times after taking them away for one reason or another. When do we say enough is enough? I am very well aware that there is no way in hel* there will ever be laws for one to become a parent, although the other post about adoptive parents having to go through classes, training and background checks kind of touches on that now doesn't it? I am curious though as to what basic rights this would in turn violate? If it violates the basic right to procreate/to evolve, would it then mean we all should procreate and if we do not we are in violation of the natural process, or homosexuals should not have children because they did not "pro create" them themselves? I am pretty sure, but I would have not go back and read that the Constitution does NOT say anything about guaranteeing anyone the right to bear children---however, again I would have to go back and read the verbiage to debate this further. **PS....this is merely a debate about the subject, please do not take my responses as how I view anything, but rather nothing more than a debate about parents whom abuse and neglect their children!

Well with the argument, drug addicts and alcoholics are every day people with kids and families as well as someones son, daughter, sister or brother; so should we legalized current illegal drugs and driving under the influence for the sake of them getting home in time to either be their for their families or get some rest before work tomorrow? The argument I expect in return is that driving under the influence can injure and possibly kill that person and others, that taking drugs can kill that person and possibly others around them. Really? Having sex with a prostitute is like play Russian Roulette with ones life as well as others. No amount of government regulation is going to keep that under control and we the tax payers will end up footing the bill for it ALL in the end-whether it is the legalization of prostitution itself or the medical bills that those infected with diseases will incur due to sex with prostitutes. Please keep in mind that legalizing prostitution is not just for women, but men as well and one of the largest "spreaders" of HIV/AIDS and many other diseases is through sharing of needles and homosexual intercourse (no, this is not a bash to the gay community but rather mere facts). How many unsuspecting wives or husbands will have unprotectected intercourse with their spouses AFTER he/she had sex with a hooker? Many, and many have contracted diseases because of this. Again, there are many consquences for legalizing this "industry" without looking into the moral aspect of it all and in the end, ALL of it will be at the expense of the taxpayers in some fashion: Establishing offices and highering workers to montior the industry ACROSS the nation, setting up free or low income clinics for the testings of the prostitutes, criminal fees when one person finds out another gave them a disease because he/she had sex with a prostitute and decided to take the law into their own hands, medical bills related to those who contract diseases but do not have health insurance to pay for their health care or meds as a direct result of this behavior, etc..etc...etc... in the end WE the TAXPAYERS will end up paying for it and I for one do not feel compelled to pay for someone else having sex!!!

I have to agree with Plain on the above comment-As a former police officer, prostitution is not just about doing what you want with your own body, it is what you inflict on another person or what another person may inflict on you. It is a matter of the actions and behaviors that surround the prostitution "industry" and the havoc it brings to the rest of society. If we ask for the goverment to step in and control this "industry", who in the heck do you guys think is going to pay for that? TAXPAYERS, and most prostitutes even with legalized prostitution will NOT pay taxes in a cash based industry, or pay very little!!!!! You see, the goverment will have to setup office in all major cities, higher and train workers on this new "Legalized Industry", setup MORE free clinics or low income clinics to test all of these hookers for their "checkups" to make sure they are clean to screw every Tom, Dick and Harry and then fill out reports, have someone else keep up with the statistics, studies and reports. I sure as hell do not need to see more of my hard earned money go down the toilet because someone want to have sex for money---that is absurd! There was another post that said "how will the government regulate health checks, it is not like someone is going to wait 3 days for a clean bill of health check on his/her hooker and then have sex with her/him. Yet another stupid and costly reason why it should not be legalized. For the Netherlands comment on legalized prostituion-Do you think that even in this most liberal country they might just have hookers who do not follow the laws and health codes to the T? I know they have them, MANY of them and a lot carry some of the most nastiest diseases--not something I want or better yet, not something I would like to be "accidentally" exposed to by whatever means. BTW....Do you think the "health inspectors" over there get paid off like they do over here?? My answer: YES! So much for protecting the greater good! Another post stated if the government legalized it, then they would have more control over it.....LMAO, really??? Come on, the goverment has control over one thing, yours, theirs and my money and that is only if we report it!! How many waiters, bartenders, taxi cab drivers, etc. etc. get paid in cash and do NOT report it or report 100%??? Wild guess, a HELL OF A LOT do not repot all of their earnings, therefore what makes you think the hookers are going to do this? Better yet, when men and/or women pay for their prostitutes, it will be done on a cash basis and even the businesses will hide this under the table, because who in the hell needs a receipt for paying for sex? I suppose we find ourselves stepping on that slippery slope between past societal expectaions and the degredation of our current society; Where prostitution is being advocated to be made legal, where juvenile crime rate is disgustingly high, where material possessions are more important tha human life, where the rights of illegal immigrants are held at a high standard than he death of the person they killed, etc...etc.. Why stop at legalizing prostitution? We should go ahead and legalize all abortions (those in the third trimester as well), legalize ALL usages and sellings of any type of drug to anyone---I mean hey, what the heck do we need pharmacist for when we can hire some illegal thug to give us the drugs we want for less or the current illegal drugs for a rock bottom price compared to the guy standing on the other corner?! Then we can progress into polygimast marriages and men/women can marry people as young as 16 years of age, I mean come on we trust them to operate a half-to-one ton vehicle while talking and texting on their cell phones, they sure as heck should be able to have sex with and marry anyone, right? I suppose my point with all of this is as follows: This is nothing more than a domino effect---it starts with something simple and harmless, then progresses with spead, intensity and harmful consequences. To end: I voted undecided---I can see both sides of the arguement, like gay marriage and abortion, I do not agree with it morally but it does not hurt the rest of society however unlike gay marriage, legalizing prostitution does pose a number of consequences on society!

Tapshoes~I believe it depends on how the Publishers actually promote/advertise the book. BUt most importantly, if Oprah is going to try and make a show therefore make money off of another persons work, SHE and her STAFF should verify that what they are promoting/talking about is in fact what they say! It is called RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM (Yes, that goes for TV talkshows as well).It was Oprah's responsibility, period!

She's an overpaid muppet with a box of Ho Hos under one arm and a list of fake books under the other. OMG... That is the funniest thing today!! I agree, she is a totally friggin fuk*tard and if any of you listened to her foam at the mouth about Obama (whether you are for him or against him is IRRELEVANT), she talked about how she had a friggin poster of him in her bathroom and everytime she took a bath, she prayed he would get elected one day. Then, she said she realized that one day could me any day, that she wanted him elected in 2008, so she prayed while taking baths that he would be elected and then, he was elected. I suppose "The One" was elected because the ALL MIGHTY Oprah prayed for it in her bathtub-naked!

Well, I originally was banded April 29, 2008 and had to have the port replaced November 6 2008. Nothing like going back under to be cut open again, but hopefully this will work. I was at 5cc on a 10cc band and when I went in for the surgery, it was down to a little under 3cc's. I was under the impression however that my surgeon was actually going to move the lapband up as well, not just replace the port. When he gave me 4cc's there was no restriction at all, I could even eat bread and pastas if I wanted to, but my main concern was that I could eat a rib eye, mashed potatoes and aspargus with ZERO issues. Keep in mind that nothing of what I ate above is bad, but it was the quantity of what I could eat, and I should not have been able to even eat half of it let alone all of it. He bumped my band up to 6cc's, but I could not even swallow water, yet at 5cc's I could still eat the same dinner above. Again, it just seems that if the band were positioned in the right place, I should not be able to eat as much! I have not lost a single pound since surgery and for over 3 months I watched my diet to the T and worked out daily on the treadmill of 4 miles @ 4.5 mph, light weights and cycling classes. I understand that some of the lack of weight loss may be due to muslce gain, but seriously no weight loss at all and I am now 8 months out of surgery. I had major knee surgery in September 2008 (old sports injury that just deteriorated) and revisioned port surgery November 2008---so, working out has been very minimal to say the least over the past 3 months. Therefore, even if we argue that 3 monthsbe forgiven due to surgeries, I still should have lost something with the fills, even just a mere 10lbs!!!! I go in for my first REFILL January 6, 2009 and am wondering if I should ask him to start at 5cc's seeing as the lapband itself is not in a different position. Any advice would greatly be appreciated because I am lost as to what else to do.

Okay, so I was baded on 4/29/08 with a 10cc band. I had my first fill on 6/4/2008 @ 2cc I had my second fill on 6/11/2008 @ 1cc I wanted a fill before 6/4 but my surgeon will not give fills until you are a minimum 6 weeks out of surgery. Oh and my point, I still have ZERO restriction. Maybe my definition of restriction is different, but there is not a single food or food group that bothers me to eat. I have given up sodas (diet too), the junk foods, but it is the breads and cereals that are my enemy and one that, I know this sounds sadistic, I want to hurt when I eat it so I will not eat it. I have not lost anything in the last 3 weeks, which is weird considering my caloric intake is below 1200-1300 a day. I suppose I am lost and frustrated seeing as I am doing what I am suppose to be doing and going no where. Oh, and no I am not eating breads everyday, it is just that I can eat breads and pastas and do not want to be able to eat them for carb reasons of course.

Okay…..so I am officially 3 weeks post op today, May 20, 2008 and am seriously ready to eat a cow :thumbdown:. I have been this way since last week and the doc, oh I love him but hell, told me that as long as I am losing weight he is not too concerned about anything. My issues, I am not eating the 4oz that is suggested, but more like 10-12oz, and he said that is fine because I am losing weight so long as I am not eating crap. :sleep: I must confess, I did have 3 cookies last week although totally drowned in milk, I did eat them and I told him this:thumbdown:. He asked if that was it and I honestly told him yes. I had not even eaten the recommended oatmeal, mushy cereal, in fact no breads, rice, pasta, etc. Right now, I want to dive my big ol but into a plate of nothing by carbohydrates or a greasy cheeseburger with some chips and queso, but I have refrained. :thumbup: Quitting sugar and, well hell the “good foods” (aka: fattening foods) the way I did was like telling a drug addict, alcoholic or smoker to stop cold turkey. I was told my insurance approved me on April 18 and I needed to start my liquid diets because they were scheduling my surgery for April 25, which ended up getting pushed back to April 29, 2008. Now, I am not ungrateful because I appreciate the opportunity to have this surgery, I am sure as much as any of you, but someone please tell me what I can have because right now I want to cave in and eat something that I know I do not need, should not eat and is totally against what this procedure is for. BTW……I have eaten the sugar free jellos and puddings, the sugar free popsicles and the yogurts, but I think it is the bread my body is craving as I have had ZERO of that (except those three cookies). I feel tired, worn out, not really wanting to do anything, which I am thinking is the lack of carbs as my intake is very minimal right now. Any suggestions would be most appreciated!!!! :thumbup:

hmmmm.....interesting way to look at it, honestly....but think about what you just said. Let us pass a law that tells parents they can not use spanking as a means of discipline any longer. Do you honestly think it is going to stop that ladies boyfriend from bashing in the head of her two-year old or stop the guy who put his 4 month old in a microwave and turned it on? Do you think the no spanking law is going to stop the child porn freak or the child molesters? Do you honestly thing that the no spanking law is going to make a parent feed, house and give medical attention to their child properly? And what about human trafficing or the selling of young girls for sex? I seriously do not think that the no spanking law is going to stop that either. That is the problem, most people fail to understand or equate ALL of the standards used in child abuse statistics. Beatins and violent crimes, unfortunatly, are just one and a smaller statistic then those children whom have died because of neglect, not just physical abuse. Passing a law to stop spanking is not going to stop the child abusers that you have mentioned becasue their actions, I am pretty sure but obviously do not know for a fact that the extreme violence did not escalate from spankings. Those types of people are obviously disturbed beyond all doubt.

Brandy, It is not an anger issue, but rather an issue that the government and/or those opposed to spanking with their ever so bold attempt of sticking their noses into something that is of absolute no concern of theirs. If you want to equate spankings with animalistic behavior, then what would you call imprisoning criminals? You know, placing humans in cages for the bad behaviors? That is more animalistic than spanking a child for their behavior. Also, I do not honestly thing making the statement about being out of touch and in the 21st centruy with spanking children really makes much sense, do you? We are in the 21st century and the human condition has honestly changed how much? We still have an disgusting amount of illiteracy across the globe, children starving to death across the globe, spousal abuse across the globe, women not educated the same as men--primarily still in undeveloped or third and some second world countries......... The difference now? We have children killing children, we have children killing adults and the elderly, the increase rate of violent crimes is outstanding just from 40 years ago and the increase in young female violent crimes in the past 10 years is absurd. It appears that a good portion of our society believes in handouts, but moreso that they deserve these handouts, and work? LOL.....what is that to them... Pregnancy rates amoung girls under 20 is still profound to that of just 40 years ago. In fact, of course this is 1996 stats, over 500,000 teens give birth annually costing $6.9 billion dollars for these teen child births. If we are to look at the fact we are in the 21st century, I am thinking that those numbers should be waaaayyyyyy down than those of our ancestors from hundreds or thousands of years ago not wayyy up, right? Why are they up so high? We, as a society, should ask what the heck we are doing wrong? Do you honestly believe it is spankings? I really do not think so. PS.......Not angry while typing this, just making some points...... =)

BJean, I for one am not uncomforatable with your opinion, if you were addressing that to me. What I find irritating is how others deem it necessary to, well tell others how to raise their children as though they are some kind of expert because their children turned out PERFECTLY! This is one instance where the government needs to stay out of the home. As for the young girl you speak of, there was obviously more going on than just the spankings. What I mean, is that she was overworked, underpaid, little if any outside help, too young and not mature enough to handle raising two children on her own. There are many underlying factors to this young girls behavior, and I am not saying that excuses what she did, because she is obviously an example for your fight. I am merely saying that there are so many more factors to consider with your example than merely judging all whom spank against her actions alone. You have made a good point, I am not knocking it down because I havewitnessed first hand people whom are out of control when punishing their children for unacceptable behavior, or just beating them because the sky is blue today. I just hate the ALL parents whom spank for discipline and do it within reason for mere punishment alone, all anger aside, are coupled into a category of child abusers. I have witnessed child abuser and unfortunatly was subjected to one myself--spanking for discipline only as a last resort definitly does not fall into that category. Thanks for the debate though, it has been rather interesting.

BJean, you are again equating that parents are going to get carried away if they spank their child. Seems, again, a bit presumptous on your part. Also, noting that the rate of Child Abuse in America is simply from spankings and/or beatings is a tad uneducated on your part. I have to remember that child abuse statistics accounts for sexual acts, physical abuse and NEGLECT (meaning failure to feed, properly house and seek medical attention for the child). The below info/statistics comes from the governments child welfare office--Please note that the largest percentage of child abuse cases/fatalities is from NEGLECT, not that any type of child abuse state below is better than the other, just pointing out the statistical evidence is all: "Fatal child abuse may involve repeated abuse over a period of time (e.g., battered child syndrome), or it may involve a single, impulsive incident (e.g., drowning, suffocating, or shaking a baby). In cases of fatal neglect, the child’s death results not from anything the caregiver does, but from a caregiver’s failure to act. The neglect may be chronic (e.g., extended malnourishment) or acute (e.g., an infant who drowns after being left unsupervised in the bathtub). In 2005, 42.2 percent of child maltreatment fatalities were associated with neglect alone. Physical abuse alone was cited in almost one-quarter (24.1 percent) of reported fatalities. Another 27.3 percent of fatalities were the result of multiple maltreatment types. www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm. Also, comparing the US to that of Germany is like comparing apples and oranges in a sense. Although the Germans are catching up to the vastly and raplidly moving society that we have, they are still way different than Americans on many levels. UNICEF Posted this: The UNICEF research estimates that almost 3,500 children under the age of 15 die from physical abuse and neglect every year in the industrialized world. The greatest risk is among younger children. A small group of countries – Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Norway – appear to have an exceptionally low incidence of child maltreatment deaths [Keyword being LOW, NOT obsolete]; Belgium, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Hungary and France have levels that are four to six times higher [Note that some of these countries have no spanking laws]. The United States, Mexico and Portugal have rates that are between 10 and 15 times higher than those at the top of the league table. The good news is that child deaths from maltreatment appear to be declining in the great majority of industrialized countries. Violence in Society The research also establishes that a clear relationship seems to exist between levels of child death from maltreatment and the levels of violence in society as a whole. The countries with the lowest rates of child deaths from maltreatment also have very low rates of adult deaths from assault. Similarly, the three nations with exceptionally high levels of child deaths from maltreatment also have exceptionally high adult death rates. Studies were quick to point out that the US is the largest mediated country of VIOLENCE. That our media will show/display violence any time it occurs whereas other countries, such as Germany, does not-hence why you do not hear too much about their child abuse rate. Here is an article regarding Germany's Child Abuse I will also post part of the article so that you do not have to link--Again, remember child abuse is NOT just physical abuse, but includes sexual abuse (human trafficing for sex crimes included which is HIGHLY predominant in Eurpoean countires) and NEGLECT (no feeding, providing proper shelter or medical treatment): Child abuse cases in Germany prompt debate - International Herald Tribune While the federal crime office was quick to note that statistics showed the number of children killed at home was not on the rise overall, it reported child-abuse cases had climbed to more than 3,000 in 2006 from about 1,900 in 1995. Nowhere is the problem more acute than in Berlin, where the rate of reported abuse cases is four times the national average. "It's just atrocious," said Margit Eichler, a care giver for elderly people, out for a walk in the capital's Moabit district. Again, the issue is that NOT ALL Countries post their statistics about Child Abuse as America does. That doesn't mean it does not exist or is minimal, because that just isn't the case. Again, ANY FORM of child abuse is awful, but to equate a spanking for punishment to that of beatings, burnings, murders, failure to feed, shelter or give medical treatment and of all other sexual and human trafficing of young children for sex; well that in itself is ludicrous.

Here is another with less than 10 carbs......Also, with bananas, you may want to ask your doctor if it is okay as women need a good portion of potassium daily and bananas do the trick. I drink the chocolate, but they do have vanilla and I believe strawberry. ****LEAN BODY**** Serving Size: 1 box Calories: 260 Sodium: 650mg Potassium: 600mg Total Carbs: 9g Dietary Fiber: 5g SUgar: 0g Protein: 40g

Brandy, It all depends on how one chooses to read into what I am writing, or better yet how they perceive my emotional state when I write. I am not angry as I posted earlier, there is not much that angers me. What I find so profoundly distrubing is people, and not you in particular but rather our society, trying to hang on the words of people like Dr. Phil. Not only is he NOT a psychiatrist (Medical Doctor) but he has not even had a license to practice as a psychologist in almost 20 years because it was revoked and all he had to to was comply with the terms of the states licensing board probationary period. Oprah, I have nothing against her, but she does not have children, so her advice is from the backseat. Not really fare to give advice and criticize others now is it? And I am not just talking about spanking children, but advice on children all together. It is kind of like a man telling a woman whom was brutally raped that she cannot have an abortion. Really? Before we go off on that debate, I am not for nor against abortion as it is not my business what you choose to do. You will ultimatly answer to someone, albeit yourself indefinently for your actions. Seriously, I was just trying to make a comparison is all as to the principle, not the act. As far as answering BJeans request to list some of my heros, I really and truly do not have any to list. I look up to no one, but rather choose to witness how people behave and lead their lives. Then, I try to decide if this is what I want or should do myself that will help me. Either I do it, or I do not. I am not one to conceed to what is PC for the moment nor do I delve into the currently societal ideological beliefs, but rather try to use my better judgement and move on. I think we put too much focus on aspects of this life that do not deserve that much attention. I think we, and I mean society in general, lend too much attention to hollywood and other media industries because they broadcast their views onto us all. Maybe I went off on a bit of a philosophical tangent, but I do not dare raise my children how society in generals thinks I should raise my children. I mean seriously, have you seen the chaos our society is in right now? Likewise, I am not equating anything with discplining children right now, I am merely stating the obvious and that is this: There are serious moral issues with society,in general, that should be addressed and spanking a child for disciplinary purposes only, NOT BEATING, should be at the very bottom of the list of things this country needs to take care of. Ahhh........I am not a "Bible Thumper", in fact I attend church only on holidays. My point for posting that was because somewhere in a few postings back someone equated those whom spank their children with those whom attend church regularly and think it is okay to "beat" their children.

BJean? Here is your posting, therefore please note what I have highlighted yours in "red" as being what I referred to and my responses in "blue".....the rest of your quote is left in black: One thing that I've observed while reading this thread is that people who are spankers seem to think that all the kids who misbehave or act out or are obnoxious or in juvenile detention facilities are the ones who were not "disciplined" and only "talked to". That's why I'm glad that Brandy posted Dr. Phil's advice. There are forms of discipline that work, and work extremely well, that have absolutely nothing to do with corporal punishment. Dr. Phil is a brilliant man, although somewhat obnoxious himself sometimes. He certainly does know about human behavior and has had a very successful career because of his ability to decipher human behavior. You may not enjoy his personality and you may not like how he says something, but you can't argue with his success and his very real knowledge of human behavior. I do not agree with Dr. Phil, and I hate to break it to you, but what he does is simple: He has highjacked other REAL psychiatrists works and put a twist to it so that he can be cool on TV. He is an arrogant ass and a bully. He hasn't done anything but publicly humiliate, degrade and bully people in public. You mean to tell me that psychological abuse is okay in your book but not physical? Are you aware of the fact that psychological abuse in fact, with a multitude of actual studies to prove this, has more long term detrimental effects on children than spanking? You say he is successful? At what? Being on TV, well heck look at Britanny Spears, Michael Jackson, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton...well, they are successful and such upstanding models for our society too, Right? I suppose I am jealous of them too? LOL.....you're funny! I just choose not to look at celebrities to get advice for raising my family, you know because they do such a bangup job of raising their own.....LOL....more like their nannies raise their children. Wait, Oprah does not even have any children does she? So she is qualified to speak about parenting skills because of why? That is what I thought and my point with her. If you feel that you must spank your child because they have not responded to your voice, then you are probably not using your voice and your intellect in the most effective way. It takes a lot of thought, patience and respect for a parent to not hit a child when the child has done something wrong repeatedly and will not stop when they are told to. But spanking is not the best consequence if you are truly trying to teach your child a lesson. It is a very quick way to shut them down, that we probably all agree on. How do you know it is not the best way to teach a lesson? Again, assuming that ALL children are alike and respond to the same punishments as other children do. Termpements, behaviors and personalities are different for EVERYONE. Not all will respond to consequences and rewards the same as others. Remember this. But your goal as a parent/teacher/protector should be to give the message to your child that you respect and love them and that he or she is an extremely important human being. Even though they are having a melt down for one reason or other, they need to know that you are the person who is there to help them with the problem that is causing the misbehavior. They need to know that they can depend on you when they are tired, angry, frustrated, hungry, scared and all the other emotions kids have, even at those times when you are preoccupied with your own emotions or tasks. Because a parent spanks their child means they are conveying the message that they do not love their child? A tad presumptous don't you think. You are making the assumption that this is what the child will "think" because he or she is being spanked of the ill behavior. Do you ever stop and think that their are a multitude of parents whom tell their children that they are not disciplinging them because they don't love them, but quite the contrary? That they do not want to see them get hurt or do bad things so they are trying to teach them a lesson? Because you do not agree does not make it wrong. The first step is for you to figure out what is really going on. You cannot correct a child if you do not understand what caused the behavior. Yeah, I know what you're thinking... if your child is acting out in a store you sure don't have enough time to stop, analyze and communicate with your child in order to determine how to deal with his/her problem. But in fact, it is your job to do just that. The reality is that, for most parents who spank, they are frustrated and sometimes perplexed at their child's behavior and they just need for the behavior to stop so they can do whatever they feel is more important at that particular time. And here we go: you stated above that for most parents who spank, they are frustrated and will spank so that they can do whatever it is they feel is more important that that time. Yes, I read your post correctly and did not nor am I now posting in anger. I can read and it is as plain as day right above this paragraph! You can argue all you want about the kind planning and forethought that goes into the spankings you administer, but MOST spankings are not carried out in that manner. But most spankings are carried out in this manner----Again, how do you know this unless you are able to read the parents mind and comprehen their emotional state without them even telling you. That is why a clerk in a store is a bit outraged when they see a parent hit a child. They know that if a parent is angry enough to hit their child in public, there is a good chance that when they have the child in private and they are angry and frustrated, they are likely to be even more physically harmful to the child. That is why we're having this discussion. Not because most people use good judgement when they spank their kids. It is because spankings happen most often when people are angry and frustrated at their child for doing something repeatedly that they've been told not to do. You can justify spanking your child until the day is long, but we all know why we're having this discussion. Again, because I spanked my son on the back of the hand for taking something that does not belong to him, that automatically means the store clerk is going to assume I beat the crap out of my son at home? Really? Are you seriously saying this? Again, how can you attest to the clerks line of thinking and reasoning? How do you know the clerk is thinking that the parent must beat the heck out of the child at home? Again, how do you know the parents train of thought and emotional status is that of and angry frustrated person? If you have the utmost respect for your children and you take your role of parenting as seriously as you would any job, I believe that you would work very hard to understand your child and what causes their misbehavior, like Dr. Phil suggested, and solve the problem of rule breaking in a non-corporal punishment way that actually teaches a lesson to the child and instills self-respect and self-confidence instead of fear. Again with the Dr. Phil comment. He is not brilliant nor is he a role model. Again, his kids are the most upstanding citizens? He raised them all by himself in the one and only marriage he was able to hold on to because he is such a great man. What about all of his co-workers, you know the ones whom call him an ass, bully, jerk..etc. etc. Well, I am sure his PhD from Germany must make him more qualified than anyone, right? Really, I am sure I can highjack the works of world class psychiatrist and put it on TV by being a drama queen too. I find it quite humorous that you make the bold assumption that I am jealous of him. In order to be jealous I would have to want what he has, and I hate to break it to you, but I want nothing that person has. Not one inch of his life. I dare not look at myself has high-and-might or think that I am smarted than others because I am working on my PhD, but what I do know is this: Unless you plan on spending your time and money to go to every home whom spanks their children and give your method of child rearing a shot, it would make more sense for you to stop meddeling in other families lives as though yours was perfect with out any issues because I would be willing to bet your children were not perfect and I am sure they have done plenty of things that you do not know of and some that would blow you away. Again, I do not advocate spanking children, but it is there for a line of punishment when necessary, and sometimes dear, it is necessary. Please understand the difference between spanking and beating. I cannot imagine that not one time, even when your children were little you never spanked them on their hands for getting into anything. If not, good for you as I assure you for me, it is the very and I do mean very last resort that is approached seldomly because I had a father who actually did beat the hell out of me and I would never do that to my children. Hence the difference between spankings and beatings. I assure you there is a big difference. But here is some research on your beloved Dr. Phil.......HE HAD HIS LICENSED REVOKED ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO AND IT STILL HAS NOT BEEN REINSTATED. Although I pulled this info from only one site, there is plenty, and I do mean plenty of research on this arrogant bully to prove what has been posted below: In 1989, McGraw was sanctioned by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists for an ethical violation involving a 19-year-old patient and employee. Due to the sanctions, McGraw was unable to practice psychology independently. McGraw shifted focus in 2003–4 to emphasize weight loss shows, books and products. His sisters Deana and Brenda and nephew Tony were among the featured testimonials on the Dr. Phil show.Within a few years, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) probe and class-action lawsuit forced him to exit the weight loss business. Sanctioned for unethical behavior (1989) The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists imposed disciplinary sanctions on McGraw on January 27, 1989 for an inappropriate "dual relationship" reported in 1988 by a therapy client/employee from 1984. McGraw was ordered by the Board to take an ethics class, pass a jurisprudence exam, complete a physical evaluation, undergo a psychological evaluation and have his practice supervised for one year in order to continue his private practice in Texas. McGraw admits to giving the client a "job" at his office (which is not allowed), but denied carrying on a sexual relationship with the 19-year-old, who says their relationship was "sexually inappropriate.As of 2008, McGraw has not completed the conditions imposed by the Board of Examiners of Psychologists, and he is not licensed to practice psychology in Texas, California, or anywhere else. Weight loss products (2003) In 2003, McGraw entered the weight-loss business, selling shakes, energy bars, and supplements. These products' labels, which carried the brand name "Shape Up", stated: "These products contain scientifically researched levels of ingredients that can help you change your behavior to take control of your weight." This met with swift criticism from various sources,accusing McGraw (a clinical psychologist, and not a physician) of lacking the expertise to recommend weight-loss products. Facing a Federal Trade Commission investigation into Shape Up's claims, McGraw pulled his supplements off the market in March 2004, and the FTC dropped its probe. In October 2005, several people who used McGraw's products declared an intent to file a class-action lawsuit against him, claiming that although the supplements cost $120 per month they did not stimulate weight loss.McGraw settled the suit in September 2006 for $10.5 million. Britney Spears "intervention" (2008) McGraw attracted criticism for his unannounced visit to celebrity Britney Spears' hospital room in January 2008. The visit appeared to be part of an attempt at getting Spears and her parents to take part in an "intervention" on the Dr. Phil television show.Immediately after the visit, McGraw issued public statements about Spears' situation that Spears' family spokeswoman Lou Taylor said violated their family trust in McGraw. "This is another example of a trust being betrayed," Taylor told Today co-host Meredith Vieira. "Rather than helping the family’s situation, the celebrity psychologist caused additional damage", she said.Several mental health care professionals criticized McGraw for his actions; however, fellow TV psychologist Dr. Joyce Brothers defended McGraw.One professional psychologist filed a complaint with the California Board of Psychology alleging that Dr. Phil practiced clinical psychology without a license and violated doctor-patient privilege by discussing Spears' case with the media. He also started a petition to have the Dr. Phil show removed from the air.