Some facts that support what I have said here -- Lafcadio T. Lion and Strawberry Sage and Friends Fun Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:00:03 01/22/02 Tue
Author: Diogenes Lion, with lamp and facts in hand
Author Host/IP: qam1b-sif-86.monroeaccess.net / 12.27.214.87
Subject: Some facts that support what I have said here
In reply to: Laf - humbly 's message, "Re: And you wonder why...?" on 00:00:38 01/22/02 Tue

Here is an excerpted piece from a newsletter I receive on a daily basis. The facts speak for themselves, but they say even more than the analysts have extracted for this piece. Read it and see if my evaluation of the other significance of the data that follows holds true for you as well.

"It's long been known that many babies born prematurely turn out to be less intelligent than their peers when they reach adulthood. Now a new survey shows some good news with the bad. A new study carried out in Cleveland, and reported by the Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital there, shows that many "preemies" turn out to be better adjusted young adults because of one major reason ... they were doted over by their parents. The report, released to the media this week, shows that many of the babies actually are better behaved during their adolescent years because they have been given more personal instruction as they were growing up."

"By the way, only about one percent of babies born in this country are considered to have "very low" birth weight, that is 3.3 pounds or less. Most of the premature babies tracked in the Cleveland study were born in the 1970s before modern-day prenatal care was in vogue."

Of course, the study was limited to premature, low birth weight infants and their later adolescent development but it reveals something else significant that many of us have been saying for many years. I firmly believe that any such study of ALL children that devotes itself to determining the social adjustment of young adults whose parents gave them the same level of attention would show that those children who benefited from one-on-one, high quality time and attention from his, or her, parents while an infant are more appropriately socially adjusted.

As my hero and mentor, Homer Simpson, would say... "Doh!"

Let's be honest. It is almost impossible to have time for your own needs and desires if you devote the amount of time that would be required to your infant.

SO WHAT!?!?!?! There's a simple answer to that argument. MAKE THE TIME YOU SPEND WITH YOUR CHILD YOUR NEED AND DESIRE! It's that simple.

It is often not only the infant who needs to grow up. Many times, it is the parent himself or herself who needs to accept adult responsibilities and obligations. Making a baby is not difficult. Anyone can accomplish that chore without any real effort and it is blatantly obvious that one need not pass either a basic IQ test or adult responsibilities and maturity test before engaging in sexual intercourse. A brief visit to many classrooms across this nation would convince all but the most dyed-in-the-wool bleeding heart liberals that, were the offspring of two sex partners with single digit IQs to receive an IQ equal to the sum total of both his or her parents' IQ scores, that child would still have an IQ well below room temperature in an open air shelter on a January day in Wisconsin.

Even these children would benefit from the attention their premature cousins enjoyed in this study. While it is not possible, or fair or just, to expect those lower IQ children to attain the heights of technical and academic acumen found in the everyday street sweeper or fire hydrant, they can be taken to the heights of their own capabilities by responsible and caring adults. That includes his or her parents as well as the teachers blessed with those opportunities throughout the young life of that school child.

That's right. I said OPPORTUNITIES! I said that those opportunities are BLESSINGS! Am I nuts? My own experience tells me I am not.

When I was in school, we had real TEACHERS, not "professional educators." They spent time imparting KNOWLEDGE and LEARNING SKILLS as well as discipline and a sense of responsibility to me and to others. Sure, I had a few "bad apple" teachers throughout my educational career. We all did. But, for the most part, I had men and women who cared deeply about what they did and took satisfaction in doing it well. They weren't in it for the money, for certain. They were grossly underpaid and underappreciated by the community at large for the most part, but they were revered and the kids loved them in their own ways. They devoted their time and efforts to TEACHING not unionized bargaining to protect less capable cohorts from the consequences of their own incompetence.

I still remember Mrs. Rose, my first grade teacher who presided over the channeling of my natural curiosity and parentally-encouraged reading and mathematic skills into the proper course that would provide me with the tools I would need in life. Mrs. Bevon was thrilled by my second grade self-acquired mastery of long division well in advance of the school board established curriculum. She encouraged me and gave me challenges appropriate to my own personal level of learning. She did not punish me by making me "dumb down" to prevent less capable learners from feeling "diminished." At the same time they encouraged my zest for acquiring knowledge and basic learning skills, both women worked with other, more educationally challenged, children who were still having a problem grasping the basic concept of daylight. Both made each of those children find attainable goals for themselves and reach for them. Mrs. Centanni made elementary school reading and writing joys for me and worked with other kids who found trying to read and comprehend common street signs to be examples of high literary accomplishment.

In junior high, there was "Mister D" (D'Gerolamo) who made learning how to properly complete a standard income tax return a part of basic arithmetic. Those are skill sthat provided me with a way to make a living after an illness robbed me of a career in 1992.

Later, in high school, I would encounter Walter "Chrome Dome" Hines (Latin I, II, III), Mrs. Elliot (English II, III), Jessica Godwin (Speech), Mr. Herring (Debate and English) and several others. I was (as I still am, I think) a handful for all of them because of my natural playfulness and pranksterism. But, they believed in me and they made me know they did. They also helped me learn to believe in my own ability to ACCOMPLISH mastery of intellectual possibilities if I was willing to do the necessary work to acquire it and that was a gift beyond all description.

Today's child is greeted into this life with automated baby swings and battery-powered mind candy crib toys that lull him or her into a mindless stupor that does away with the need for parental attention or involvement. He or she grows quickly into an automaton placed in front of an electronic baby sitter that relieves Mom and Dad from having to be involved with him or her teaches and provides an entire set of "progressive" subliminal messages to the unquestioning, unchallenging minds of the captive audience placed before it. When not watching the tube, they use the same device to play electronic games that have nothing to do with being a human child in need of sunshine, fresh air and non-adult-supervised play with other children. There are great values to be learned from another young boy's well-applied bare knuckles that give lie to all the well intentioned attempts to degenderize our young boys in an attempt to create a uptopian, unnatural race of emasculated young males who settle differences with soap opera style verbal squabbling.

The next time someone tries to tell you that what children see and hear on television does not convince or persuade those young minds, ask them why they run commercials on those programs and if those commercials have any effect. If they don't work, why do the media charge so much for them? Why do advertisers spend so much time and money to create them?

If you really want to trap them in an inescapable web of their own weaving, get them started on complaining about how media implants acceptance of smoking in youngsters due to the images they see on television (a liberal mantra of collective thought) and media images, then take the discussion into the other areas of mind control by proxy available on the tube. They cannot have it both ways. If they argue for the one correlation, they are forced to accept the reality of the existence of the other.

The next time you want to know why Johnny and Jane can't read and are misbehaved while Timmy and Suzy can and are well behaved, look at Johnny and Jane's parents and their teachers. It is probable they got short changed on both levels.

But then, what the Hell do I know?

See you later. I'm going outside to play for a while.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]