CONTROL YOUR CHILD WHEN YOU LEAVE YOUR HOUSE

-->

CONTROL YOUR CHILD IN PUBLIC

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD Traditional Realist

“Obedience is the foundation of all learning.” Benjamin Franklin

In our busy lives we ignore many things as we pass through on the way to our destination.  We usually have no personal connection with the people we are rushing by until we have to wait to get our needs met. These incidents could take place walking in a park, waiting in line for food, shopping in a supermarket or passing time to make our transportation connection.

Once we are confined in a public space we are at the mercy of others, especially “terrorist children.” These out-of-control brats scream, run around, knock things over, pull products off shelves, hit their parents and always do the opposite of what the parent is saying. “Sit down”, they stand up, “lower your voice” the louder they shout, “stop running,” the faster they run.

The old international standby is finally employed. The child responds to this holy grail long enough to say, “I’m in Time Out” then takes off as fast as his little feet can move to kick his little sister’s toy across the room.  Now the race between the child and parent ensues. The parent, unable or unwilling to capture him, gives up. The child triumphantly smiles at the parent.

The mother says gently to the child, “why are you not listening to me?” This is a ridiculous comment, since the child does not usually listen to the parent at home. He listens to the parent only when he wants something. Immediately the mother goes back to looking at her computer to end the confrontation. The father ineffectually tries to intervene by putting his screaming daughter in her stroller. He takes off to the far end of the building where she screams louder.

Almost all observers are embarrassed for the parents’ weakness and ineffectualness but they are not condoning the parents’ behavior. Most of them who are waiting to board the airplane are looking around in fear that these or another child terrorist will be assigned to the same row on their flight. No one wants to be confined in a small space while being a witness to a child abusing the parent and others by his behavior.

Parents no longer can ignore their responsibility to get their children under control before going into public. Even in our non-judgmental world the misbehavior of children is still annoying and unacceptable to others.

Some states are starting to take steps to curb these attacks by allowing private restaurant owners to ban not only out-of-control but all children.  Instead of the public being aghast at the “no-children policy,” they have been supportive of owners doing what is necessary to keep old and attract new customers. If parents do not do a better job of training their children there will be more areas off limits to all children. Eventually parents may even be fined for their children’s obnoxious behavior.

It is ridiculous to think that children are going to act right in public when they are not trained at home to listen and be respectful. Learning the difference between acting appropriately or inappropriately should be taught at home. If the child has not been taught this difference, he will naturally display disruptive rather than productive behavior. Often these children’s actions can cause shunning by others and even result in intervention by a professional.

The development of a healthy and appropriate child takes effort. When parents do not do their duty to train their child in the social norms of the culture, they are not only doing a disservice to their own offspring, but to every person who has contact with the child in the future. The child’s actions are a direct indicator of the parent’s involvement.

Parents should be embarrassed and ashamed for their failure to fulfill their obligations. A person who becomes aware of a child who is not acting appropriately, should directly address the child to listen to his parents and do whatever is appropriate at the time. This would do two beneficial things. One, it would put the child on notice that his is being evaluated by others. Secondly it would force the parents to feel social pressure to do more than they are doing.

The problem is if the parents do not effectively parent, the child, not the parents will be labeled and medicated. The parents’ ignorance and/or laziness will mark the child as disabled for the rest of his life. The parents only need to do their job as parents to help their child’s future and prevent all of us from suffering at the hands of an unruly child.

The best remedy would be for parents to get off their duffs and simply do their job of making their children listen and obey their directions.  This takes time and effort although it pays great dividends. An obedient child grows to be more socially acceptable, is a better student and a more productive citizen.

Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at drmaglioblogspot.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT UNDERMINED BY PC AND HATE CRIMES

THE FIRST AMMENDMENT UNDERMINED BY PC AND HATE CRIMES

By Domenick Maglio, Phd., Traditional Realist

Americans have always prided themselves with living in a nation where you can freely speak your mind. Freedom of speech is such a core value in our nation that the First Amendment of our Constitution protects it.

Almost all segments of our society seem to want to telecast all sorts of personal information about their daily lives. Social networks such as Facebook, Google + and Twitter give anyone a venue to share anything they want with anyone who is willing to listen. Norte Dame’s Manti Te’o had an imaginary girlfriend, which he shared with the world. The media was a non-verifying accomplice to this compelling though false story.

Bumper stickers, T-shirt messages and tattoos put a person's likes and dislikes on public display, which is often more than innocent bystanders should have to endure. The more freaky and immoral messages are considered chic and cool. The more outrageous the printed speech, the more attention it receives by others and the media.

Yet we have entered a period where a person expressing a long held traditional belief like marriage is between a man and a woman can now be defined a "hate crime" by a small well-organized segment of society. The elite media treats certain subjects as taboo. It throws its full support and power of the word to define whatever they see fit as an intolerable hate crime. Anyone who questions whatever they declare, according to these “tolerant progressives” is a hate monger.

Chick-Fil-et CEO, John Cathy, made a Biblical reference that marriage was indeed between a man and a woman to a Christian newspaper and was crucified by many in the media. He was supposedly degrading and vilifying homosexuality. His statement was interpreted as a coded message of hate against the gay community but he was the one who received a direct attack on his character.

Strong personal convictions do not make a person intolerant. Every person has a right to his values and the expression of them under the First Amendment.

Even when a well-reasoned, cogent argument against a policy of President Obama is given instead of the merits and deficiencies of it being discussed, the discussion is dismissed as a racial attack on our president. We are not having a free, open and civil discussion to better understand each other's point of view. We are attacking and obliterating the messenger.

Refusing honest debate by making unsubstantiated allegations is becoming commonplace.  A politician or media personality can make any claim without an iota of evidence. It becomes the responsibility of the accused person to prove his innocence.

The new rule has become “you are guilty until proven innocent.” This can be seen with new laws such as sex abuse and domestic violence laws on the state level.  Innocent people have to spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money attempting to find out the specific evidence supposedly linking them to an often-fabricated incident meant to harm them. The accused is guilty regardless of the truth of the accusation until he proves otherwise.

Senator Majority leader, Harry Reid, publicly stated that he heard from an unnamed source that Romney did not file income taxes for 10 years. Senator Reid then had the audacity to tell the people of the USA that it was up to Mr. Romney to produce the proof of 10 years of income tax filings or it would be presumed he did not file. This means all unsubstantiated rumors would become facts if the individual did not disprove them. This is turning due process on its head.

The non-violent Tea Party movement was classified by Homeland Security as a domestic terrorist organization. Although the organization's consistent message has been limited government, reduction of national debt and more responsive representatives in doing what they say. There has not been one legitimate incident of violence connected with the Tea Party movement. If this is a terrorist agenda, it is the same one our founding fathers died for.

In the 1960 anti establishment movement, participants burned flags, mocked every institution and destroyed property under the guise of free speech. They were protected under the First Amendment. Now that some of these same people have risen to power, they are ironically proponents of a strong central government curtailing the First Amendment protections. They argue for ethnic and color diversity while insisting on Politically Correct conformity of thought.

Truth still does matter. Only by allowing citizens the ability to freely speak can a free marketplace of ideas exist.  Slander with blatant lies and rumors will still exist but will be exposed and cleansed by open, civil debate. The vitality of our republic depends on a free people speaking openly.

This process will lead to the flourishing of systematic indoctrination resulting in full-blown totalitarianism. Limiting and eventually crushing conditions for people to be sufficiently comfortable to express themselves will allow and encourage a repressive central government.

Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at  drmaglioblogspot

The Protector of All our Freedoms: Second Amendment

THE PROTECTOR OF ALL OUR FREEDOMS: SECOND AMENDMENT

By Domenick J. Maglio, PhD., Traditional Realist 

The liberals were fearful of President GW Bush using his executive privilege to send dissenters into internment facilities. The conservatives have the same apprehensions about President Obama’s misuse of executive powers. Across the entire political spectrum from anarchists to statists, Americans realize that any big government can use its power to enslave its people.

The establishment of our nation was a revolt against the tyranny of Great Britain. Our founding fathers knew first hand that there is no negotiating or compromising with a central government hell bent on oppressing its people. Only the presence of potentially equal or more power can prevent a government from seizing the freedom of the people.

George Washington said, “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them which would include their own government.” This indicates that President Washington would have no problem with sophisticated weapons comparable to the military to be in the hands of the people. It is another check and balance on the federal government.

Hubert Humphrey, was an icon of the democrat party. He was a progressive two term senator from Minnesota, majority whip, vice president of the USA and presidential nominee of the democrat party in 1968. He said, “ Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under our government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

Extraordinary men of peace and proponents of social justice understood the need for guns to thwart evil intentions. “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”  The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times. “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. - Mohandas K. Gandhi.“ That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”  George Orwell

The establishment of a despotic government seems to require that citizen’s guns have to be removed from the wall to minimize any armed resistance. In 1935 Adolf Hitler required full gun registration in Germany.  He proceeded to galvanize his power exterminating many of his citizens. The Soviet Union in 1929  established gun control which ushered in the annihilation of 20 million of its citizens. In 1911 Turkey passed gun control that assisted them in killing 1.5 million Armenians.  

Gun ownership has been outlawed in Uganda, Cambodia, China, Guatemala and Rwanda where the killing of the opposition was the normal operating procedure of these dictatorial governments. Multi millions of people have been killed in these countries where citizens have become powerless to resist.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in the USA during WWII supposedly was one major reason that Japan chose not to attack the west coast of the United States. The Japanese understood a land invasion would be too costly in the same way criminals would rather not confront a home or person who possesses a weapon.

Guns not only repel foreign invasions and criminals but have the same effect on megalomaniac politicians who entertain thoughts of controlling their people through intimidation or direct force. As George Mason, the co-author of the Second Amendment, said, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” It is our citizen’s duty to insist on gun ownership to protect our freedoms internally and externally.

The abolishing of the Second Amendment would not stop evil acts but will result in all of our American freedoms crumbling. Our first Amendment is presently on shaky ground although we have the ability to use politically correct double talk in front of certain audiences and free speech in others.

Once guns are confiscated from the hands of law abiding citizens the government elites would classify gun owners as criminals. The leader of the government (dictator) would abolish the rest of the Bill of Rights. This will enslave citizens without any possibility of reprisal from them. Americans will be defenseless pawns of the government.

Thomas Jefferson said it succinctly. “ When government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny.”

This sums up the reason the second amendment was so specific and firmly stated by our founders. It is as needed today as it was in the past and will continue to be in the future. Confiscating of guns ends in tyranny. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are the ultimate safeguards against the loss of our freedoms.

Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.com.

VENTING THERAPY CAN BE DANGEROUS

VENTING THERAPY CAN BE DANGEROUS

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

Almost all of us have had days where everything seems to go wrong. On these occasions it makes us feel better after blowing off steam. This is especially true when things go wrong due to no fault of our own such as missing a flight due to an auto accident that backed up traffic, a power outage that ruined plans for dinner or a myriad of other incidents beyond our control.

However, there are many times we create our own problems. We failed a crucial test because we chose to party instead of study. Our sweetheart broke off the relationship after discovering an affair. We spread a false rumor about a co-worker and she was fired. Throwing a fit when we caused the problem in the first place does not solve anything. Stupid behaviors have negative consequences no matter how much a person raves, screams, rants or projects his actions onto someone else. Yet there are mental health catharsis groups that encourage members to express their thoughts and feelings to assist them in resolving their difficulties. 

 The reality is too often venting group participants cause other members to have a difficult time distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Group members are taught to be non-judgmental leaving the patient believing he is free to do whatever he is proposing. He normally perceives the group’s silence to be an affirmation of his destructive thought process. It can be a dangerous therapeutic approach when the therapist does not have the professional inclination to rapidly assess the mental status of the client.

Starting a group therapy session by going around the circle questioning each member with something similar to, “How are you doing?” begins a contest in outdoing the others in the group. Each one tries to show how his life is more difficult or “messed up” than anyone else in the room.

This exercise inadvertently is conditioning participants to be consummate complainers. It also makes the member’s lives appear bleaker than they really are. Being more “messed up” than the next guy becomes the emphasis/ the contest. A client learns to take a positive and make it into a negative while embellishing it. It shows the group how clever the client is. The member’s creative complaining dialogue becomes the focus of the group

The approach does not help the participant to use better strategies to resolve his problems. Instead it increases the number of perceived unresolved issues in the person’s life. This venting process often weakens, not strengthen the mental health of the individual.

When the therapist hears a client working himself into a frenzy she could intervene to point out a constructive strategy in dealing with the particular problem instead of sitting back in a passive, non-directive role. The therapist’s silence is often seen as a confirmation that the patient’s thought process is valid.  This perceived validation by the counselor only stimulates the client’s “woe is me” narrative.  The other group members laughingly encourage the patient to continue his pathetic negative self-talk.

Venting does not solve the problem of the individual. Hitting pillows, squishing balls, punching bags, screaming into a pillow does not decrease anger but increases it. Brad Bushman, PhD’s., research in 1999 at Ohio State University has debunked the myth of catharsis effectiveness in decreasing serious anger issues. His research found catharsis type therapy is less effective than sitting quietly or meditating.

The catharsis of venting does give temporary relief although in the long run it feeds the anger without dealing with the underlying problem. The constant complaining eventually pushes one or two of the more clear thinking people away. Through smiles and laugher, most of the group frighteningly legitimizes the bizarre thoughts and hostile actions. These rants are usually not confronted by the therapist who is often trained not to intervene.  This is outrageous because many of these mentally unbalanced people wind up exploding, hurting innocent people as we have seen time and time again in the media.

Mental health comes from learning how to overcome obstacles, not through a group egging a person on. This griping type approach does not produce possible options to solve one’s problems. This is not therapeutic, it is an incubator for mental weakness and eventual full blown disease that can disastrously result in many innocent victims being harmed.

The legitimizing of these artificial grievances in the head of the patient often leads to aggressive acting out behavior. The patient has now moved from verbal venting to physically acting out. This has serious implications for public safety.

Venting type therapy may be somewhat of a benefit to people with mild functioning difficulties but is a dangerous approach with individuals that have serious psychiatric issues. Therapists who use this method should be held professionally accountable if clients are inappropriately placed in the group or do not take precautions to insure a patient is sufficiently mentally stable to be released into the general population.

Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.com.