to dobbs means to blame shift, filtered light, children and psychological control

muted blues

Lou Dobbs is trying to blame some far left radicals – rhetoric and a mindset stuck in the 60s – for his leaving CNN. Maybe having insulted every group of Americans except rich white males Dobbs has proved that oneself can frequently be the worse of enemies,

Dobbs is known most widely these days for his inflammatory attacks on illegal immigrants. Stoking nativist paranoia, he has blamed undocumented workers for problems both real and imaginary, from lost jobs and violent crime to increasing leprosy and conspiracies against U.S. sovereignty. On more than one occasion, he has encouraged far-right suspicions about Barack Obama’s citizenship, allowing the “Birthers” to spout their theories on a network that had already discredited them (even on his own program).

There are legitimate concerns to be had in regards to illegal immigration. If the rule of law is a concept one subscribes to, they violate that rule. Being hateful about people who love America so much they are willing to risk arrest and deportation, is hardly the way mature adults should be handling the issue. As a practical matter Dobbs probably still possesses enough functioning cognitive ability to know that. That is part of what makes Dobbs so repugnant. He makes a multi-million dollar salary, not providing wisdom and insight, but exploiting xenophobia. he has no answers, but being bereft of any ability to calculate the answers, dishes out the wildest of accusations. Accusations and exploitation are cheap by the case, with the kind of money Dobbs will likely continue to make in other venues, he could pay a few bright people to do his thinking for him (smart ghost pundits as it were), but seems too egotistical to do even that. Should Lou run for president (as Joe Suggests he will) it would make a great office pool to see how long it takes him to self destruct and blame the “radical left” for yet another self induced failure.

filtered window light

Youths See All Parental Control Negatively When There’s A Lot Of It

Scholars tell us that parental control falls into two categories: behavioral control (when parents help their children regulate themselves and feel competent by providing supervision, setting limits, and establishing rules) and psychological control (when parents are manipulative in their behavior, often resulting in feelings of guilt, rejection, or not being loved). It’s thought that behavioral control is better for youngsters’ development.

But the study, which asked 67 American children (7th and 8th graders, as well as 10th and 11th graders) to respond to hypothetical scenarios involving both kinds of control, found that the youths put a negative spin on both types of control when the parents in the scenarios exercised a lot of control. Specifically, when parents showed moderate levels of control, they saw psychological control more negatively than behavioral control, but when parents were very controlling, they viewed both types of control negatively.

What  kinds of controls that children respond to positively – where parents get generally good behavior and the child does not fell like they’re participating in the whole learning/growing up process about what constitutes good outcomes is a thin line to walk. Because in many ways we live in a Lou Dobbs- Bill O’Reilly- Hate radio unquestioning discipline, unquestioning devotion type of culture that belittles seeing answers in shades of moderation it fellows many adults see their parental roles that way. If children, being at a developmental stage of their psychological growth already see excessive micro-managing of their behavior and thoughts as bad wouldn’t that seem to indicate there is something unhealthy about an authoritarian approach to child rearing. Every bit as bad as parents that have trouble setting boundaries.