Jan 23 2015

Good Parent; Bad Parent

kidcandy 500x200

I’ve never been divorced, neither were my parents, neither were my wife’s parents. I have two siblings that have been, and have friends that have been, so while I don’t speak from personal experience, the phenomenon I’m about to describe is one in which I’ve seen repeated over and over again. When a couple is married they approach child-rearing as a team, but when they’re divorced, often it then becomes a competition.

A pattern I see often emerging is for one parent to become the “Good Parent” offering toys, candy, fun, entertainment, lax rules, etc. in order to woo the child, while the other parent, usually the main custodial parent, must then be the “Bad Parent” enforcing curfews, proper food, homework time, all those things kids hate, which they need in order to grow up healthy and well-adjusted. Actually that kind of polarization can happen even with a married couple, but it can be addressed sensibly there. With a divorced couple other factors may prevent the problem ever being seriously addressed, especially if the “Good Parent” has no intention of ever being the custodial parent and having to face the consequences of their parenting.

It occurs to me that our political parties have fallen into that pattern as well. The Democrats want to be the “Good Parent” promising bread, circuses, entitlements, hand-outs, subsidies, taxes only for those “other people” (which oddly seem to always hit the middle class the hardest in spite of the promise to “get the rich”). The Democrats know that eventually the Republicans will be in office and be forced to be the “Bad Parent” straightening out the mess left by the over-indulgent Left. Democrats gut defense and lavishly bribe special interest groups with social hand-outs, all the while offending foreign nations with their condescending foreign policies. About the time international tension are brought to their inevitable boil, out steps the DNC, and in steps the “Bad Parent” (the GOP) who has to cut back on the candy (social spending) and rebuild the military while vainly attempting to rebuild the economy.

I think the biggest problem facing Republican administrations is their unwillingness to be enough of a “Bad Parent”. Our military build up is inevitable. But in almost every other area not enough is usually done to offset the rot left from the Democrat administrations. We as a nation are in serious need of a “Bad Parent”. We can’t afford any more “entertainment”.

We need someone willing to be unpopular, and make the hard choices. We need someone that sees the necessity of discipline and hard work to build a future. We need someone that’s willing to say no to feel good programs that hurt the nation, but bring temporary popularity to shallow politicians. We need someone who can recognize real compassion, not placebos that do nothing.

America needs that “Bad Parent”.

Originally posted on March 27th, 2008 at JackLewis.net.

sponsored links

Jan 21 2015

Obama of Nottingham


Jan 20 2015

New radar allows the government to see right into your home, whenever they want to


At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person’s house without first obtaining a search warrant.

The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the Constitution generally bars police from scanning the outside of a house with a thermal camera unless they have a warrant, and specifically noted that the rule would apply to radar-based systems that were then being developed.

In 2013, the court limited police’s ability to have a drug dog sniff the outside of homes. The core of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, is “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”

Still, the radars appear to have drawn little scrutiny from state or federal courts. The federal appeals court’s decision published last month was apparently the first by an appellate court to reference the technology or its implications.

Read the full article at USAToday.com.

Jan 19 2015

What Liberals fail to understand about the law


Jan 17 2015

Nanny State…


Jan 16 2015

Government, Education and Tyranny…


Jan 15 2015

Earth Science v Political Science…


Jan 15 2015

Phil Kerpen: Government Efficiency


Jan 13 2015

Ironically, the original Wizard of Oz was intended as a political metaphor, too.


Jan 12 2015

The Retirement Village…


Jan 12 2015

Legally Insane

insane-man 500x200

Here’s an idea! Let’s make a law that’s really strict, draconian and with some severe penalties for violating it. But, we’ll let law enforcement only selectively enforce it. And we’ll give a little wink and nod when judges ignore the sentencing requirement and give only a fraction of the penalty written into the law for those few the law is actually enforced on. Isn’t that a great idea? Doing this would allow us to “scare” criminals by the mere threat of such a law, while then allowing us to constantly show compassion in only selectively enforcing it and partially implementing it.

But there’d be a problem. Some people actually believe laws should be obeyed, and in order to make such a law strict enough it would have to criminalize what would normally be acceptable behavior. A lot of people wouldn’t have a problem with such a law, because they believe law, and morality for that matter, is something that should be an individual choice based of the convenience of the moment. But others, stubbornly hold on to the concept of a moral absolute, and the principle that a civilized society should have reasonable laws accompanied by reasonable enforcement. Under our proposed law, these people would find life very burdensome, because they would try to obey a law never actually intended to be obeyed.

Yes, eventually criminals would figure the law out, and adjust their response according to the actual consequence rather than the actual law, but we’d simply then make the law even more draconian to scare them even more. Maybe we could target a few people at random who’ve somehow violated the law (intentionally or unintentionally) punish them with lengthy, expensive trials, followed by lengthy prison sentences and outrageous fines, make a big deal about it in the press, throw parties for the law enforcement officers that brought down the scapegoats, er wanton criminals, toss out promotions to the “good guys” and scare the real bad guys into maybe not doing the thing we actually wanted them to not do in the first place. Sort of. Maybe. It should work. Right?

Welcome to American Legal Philosophy 101.

What I’ve described is actually how much of our laws are written. We’ve got all the immigration laws, yet they’re rarely enforced. We let repeat criminals stay in the country, while deporting people who grew up here, never being told they weren’t US citizens. Making scapegoats out of the innocent in hopes it might frighten they guilty, which we don’t prosecute. We don’t guard our borders, then the media accuses those that try on their own of being racists. We make laws requiring stricter sentencing on those who use guns when committing a crime, then selectively apply the new sentencing guidelines to railroad the few law enforcement officers who actually assumed they were supposed to do their jobs.

The pervasive attitude that laws are suggestions has created a climate of quasi-anarchy. We have speed limits, but they aren’t very seriously enforced. Most speed limits, therefore are placed at least 10mph slower than what they reasonably should be placed at, in hopes that it would slow drivers down in the absence of any realistic enforcement.

What’s ironic is that the real victims in all this are those who actually try to abide by the law, but these are laws that become increasingly ridiculous as the words of the law– rather than the enforcement– is used to deter criminals.

Originally posted March 26, 2008 at JackLewis.net.

Jan 12 2015

Frank Fleming: Government Education…


Jan 10 2015

Government’s solution to everything…


Jan 10 2015

You can trust us, this time…


Jan 7 2015

And you thought Kim Jung Un was a lunatic…