Why Doesn't Supernanny Spank Those Rotten Kids?

(structure) + (love) + (praise) + (consistency) + (communication) = happy families

Over the years, either via Hulu or during a late-night workout,  I have seen ABC's program, Supernanny, on several occasions. It is a little one-note for me, with the same premise week after week but the ratings blockbuster keeps on rolling along (like so many others...).

For those of you who have not seen it, here is the outline of most, if not every, episode:

Jo, the titular character, is invited into some poor schmo's house that is overrun with awful kids. The children are everything adults dread--loud, ill-mannered, disrespectful, indolent. Jo observes, has a few meetings with the parents on a new behavioral method and then that method is applied. The kids raise hell, the parents almost waffle and then, in the end, Jo's method works! Another family saved.

Supernanny is a money machine with an apparently endless supply of bad families who need some nannizing. And Americans seem to love it as they watch those snotty unappreciative brats get their comeuppance from Ms. Jo.

So a question; why doesn't the nanny, a guru to millions of child beating Americans, ever spank those brats? After all, doesn't spanking work?

Could it be that she is a foreigner with snooty ways? Possibly but probably not. Is it because she is a socialist? No, but nice try.

The reason is that spanking does not work. Hitting a child to produce good behavior has never worked and it never will. I know, you were spanked. That is called anecdotal evidence and does not prove anything. Striking a child does nothing but make them sneakier and a bit afraid of the person who is, ironically, supposed to be protecting them.

Next time you watch Supernanny, look at the method she applies. She creates systems with incentives and focuses on praising and rewarding good behavior. And week after week after misbehaving week, her approach works.

Catch your kids doing something good. It will go a great deal farther and eventually create a better relationship between the two of you as well.

H1N1 Vaccine: The Facts About the Flu

(facts) - (fear) = sound choices

I had a pretty wonderful piece on how to avoid arguing with someone all ready to go when, at the gym, I saw this 60 Minutes story on the H1N1 vaccine.

Being so tired of all the fear mongering going around about this vaccine, I thought I would share this with my readers. I pick the sources of my information with the greatest of care; CBS News in general, and 60 Minutes in particular, are reputable and generally respected by the general public. I think their record of public service and quality reporting speaks for itself.

That said, listen to the people CBS selected to tell this story. Making decisions based on facts as opposed to fear is always the better choice.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Unsubscribing

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" goes the old adage. That was what I had in my head when I decided to subscribe to the NARTH newsletter a year or so ago.

For those of you who don't know, NARTH is the organization that tells sad parents and unhappy sexual minorities that they can change their sexuality if they try hard. It's silly. It's anti-scientific. And it's ethically wrong to tell people this, as a mountain of scientific data is proving time and again that sexuality is DNA-based, not a choice.

But every time one of their updates would appear in my in-box--a conference, one more workbook on how to teach boys to catch balls or change their own oil, another DVD for distraught parents--I would throw it away without reading it. Because not only is are these beliefs bullshit but they do damage to people as well.

These people and their propaganda make their victims feel that parts of their make up that is fixed is not. And that causes depression and anxiety in mild cases and self-hatred and suicide in the extreme.

So I just unsubscribed. A friendly pop-up box said:

We are sorry to see you go!

Please take a moment to tell us why you chose to unsubscribe.

I thought for a moment and wrote:

Because you are opportunists who cash in on other people's misery.