Jackson Free Press

We'll be back at it again THIS THURS and FRI at 5pm on the Kim Wade show (WJNT 1180AM/103.3FM) Been getting some great responses and I hope th JFP bloggers will tune and voice some opinions(on the site and on the show) The broadcast can now be heard (a lot clearer too I might add) on FM 103.3 at 5 p.m. each day along with its usual 1180AM spot!

...If ya didnt tune in LAST week..you missed some good discussions. I even got called and idiot. FUN!

Previous Comments

ID

109720

Comment

Im excited! I think we'll make an interesting team and bring some interesting "talk" to talk radio in Jackson cuz we DEFINITELY don't agree on a lot of things.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-03T12:14:04-06:00

ID

109721

Comment

Excellent, Kaze. After listening, I figured they would bring you in more often. Good job!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-03T13:23:52-06:00

ID

109722

Comment

Make sho you guys don't forget to listen today 5pm. aiiiiiiiight? And thanks for whatever support you wish to give. Gonna try a few different hats in 07

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T12:48:06-06:00

ID

109723

Comment

Unfortunately, the show right now just went into a not very smart call for corporate punishment in the schools. Has it occurred to you gentlemen that many parents do not punish their children by committing violent acts against them!?! So you want schools where only certain kids can be beaten? Or, do you take away the rights of parents to say that their children cannot be hit by teachers? Also, do you know how many parents who will not hit their children are raising perfectly disciplined children? Do you truly believe that beating kids is the key to disciplining their minds? Sigh, gentlemen.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T18:43:24-06:00

ID

109724

Comment

Now, they're calling for immunity so that the teachers doing the beating can't be sued. The immunity ain't gonna happen, guys. The answer here isn't going backward.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T18:48:24-06:00

ID

109725

Comment

It's tragic that this conversation went into JPS bashing. I think it's time to turn off the radio. And the immunity thing is insane; you can't say that parents cannot sue people they think are abusing their children. This is why we have juries. Unbelievable.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T18:59:52-06:00

ID

109726

Comment

whoa whoa whoaaaaa. Donna. I wasnt JPS bashing..if you heard, I made sure that it was known(especially with the last caller who said JPS was a farm system for Parchman) that there is plenty of good that comes out of JPS. Me being one of them. My brother and sister being a couple more. I happen to think they are understaffed and the teachers deserve WAAAAY more pay. Also part of the problem exists with the parents. However...as a parent, former substitute teacher, and son of a retired JPS teacher. I AM in favor of corporal punishment! Period in my home AND in the school and the decline of JPS can be attributed to it in part.. No one said anything about ABUSING anybody. there is a difference between disciplining a student and outright ABUSING him or her for no reason. When i was in JPS we got paddled..hard. And it worked. Kids today Donna know as soon as they enter a classroom that they cant be touched. the teacher is instantly put at a disadvantage if that kid chooses to cut up. Sending them to the office doesnt work and if the parent doesnt care(as is the case often) calling them only makes the kid laugh in your face. It took everything I had on several occasions not to choke a kid who was outright disrespectful. In my time there that kid would have been "handled" by one of the male teachers and I guarantee the problems would not persist. Thats not going backward.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T19:39:11-06:00

ID

109727

Comment

Since when was whooping a kid a violent act? Sure there are plenty of parents who do not spank their kids. Some of them have good kids and some have unruly kids...it varies but with mine I choose to do it..and it works for me. You've met one of mine. And he knows when he steps out of line my wrath will be swift and unmerciful. My only regret is that the teachers cant get him before I do. There was a time(and I know if you come form the same Neshoba county that my moom comes from..and I think you do) that when you got in trouble whatever adult that was present whooped your butt and THEN you got it from your folks didnt matter who it was. Now, you got crazy parents(who know they can sue) who get ignorant with teachers for "touching" their kids. And usually the parent doesnt "touch" them either. Thats why they cut up. ..Not talking about just walking up to a kid and smacking them or any inhumane form of torture hear..no not advocating abuse at all Donna. Im talking no sparing the rod. Talking simply does not work with all of today's kids. Im sorry. I know a lot of folks may not agree with me..but as a parent my stance is etched in stone on THAT one.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T19:45:52-06:00

ID

109728

Comment

..and far be it from me to say I agreed with Kim on anything :-) cuz we RARELY do. I believe thats why Im there but...we happened to agree on this one. Not to his extent(he called for tasers) but I agree it should be reinstated.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T19:48:11-06:00

ID

109729

Comment

No one said anything about ABUSING anybody. there is a difference between disciplining a student and outright ABUSING him or her for no reason. Kamikaze, what y'all were missing on the show was that the immunity you speak of—which Republicans have tried for years to get passed federally in order for schools not to be sued for rough physical punishment or kicking kids out of school—would not allow a jury, or other authority, to decide what is abuse and what isn't. It is true idiocy to try to say that parents don't have the right to sue a school official whom they believed abused their children. Idiocy. Beyond that, disciplining children with violence is most certainly moving backward. And if you think that the fear of being beaten is what is missing in today's young people, you're not as on top of these issues as I would have thought. The issue of discipline—and how its meted out and against whom and for what and who can then sue about it—is a conservative sweetheart issue. I know this because I had a lovely fellowshop to study the discriminatory effects of school discipliline and the politics behind it. To get started on the road to understanding, go read my friend Russ Skiba's report called "The Colorado of Discipline." You really have to be careful about drinking Kim and his callers' Koolaid on these topics, Kaze. They are much more complicated than conservative zealots want people to believe. Come by sometime and read my very long book proposal on the insidious political ways that issues such as school discipline politics are hurting our kids. (I put it aside to start the JFP, and haven't had time to start it back up.) It took everything I had on several occasions not to choke a kid who was outright disrespectful. That is the most horrible statement I've ever seen you make. You're not exactly busting the violent stereotypes here. I saw plenty of kids—particularly black ones—"handled" by male teachers at my school. And many of them got angrier and angrier, and the violence did nothing to help them. And isn't it funny how many kids whose parents and teachers never lay a hand on them turn out to be very disciplined. You're missing the forest for the trees, Kaze.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T19:50:23-06:00

ID

109730

Comment

Since when was whooping a kid a violent act? Since hitting another person is violence. And it teaches the victim of that violence to deal with conflict with more violence. This isn't brain surgery here. And you sure sounded like you agreed with almost everything Kim said. I was surprised. I was expectly lively debate, but it was anything but. I disagree with you: I do believe you're advocating abuse, but that's my opinion. The issue today, however, is that even if you choose to use violence to discipline your kids, that does not mean that the schools should make those kinds of decisions. And it sure the hell doesn't mean that parents should lose the right to sue when they believe abuse has been committed against their kids. Despite the hype, lawsuits are often the only thing that makes a difference when it comes to child abuse. Note the decades of abuse in the training schools; the only thing that has even slowed it down has been lawsuits. The idea of immunity is pure lunacy. And it wouldn't sound so hunky-dory when it was your kid you thought was being abused—or violently picked on differently by a teacher than another student.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T19:54:28-06:00

ID

109731

Comment

Well. I resepect your view Donna..and Im faaaaar from drinking the Kool-Aid. I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on much but I simply believe what I believe. This is a much different issue for me even when speaking about my music. No one is saying don't have the right to sue if you think your kid is being abused but now Donna parents are screaming sue if there kid gets paddled or if a teacher grabs their kid by the arm too hard or ruffles their collars. thats wrong. Its abusing the system. "Put your hand on my kid and I'll sue" and this is after the student has either jumped on the teacher(remember the Hardy Middle School incident a few years back) or physically threated the teacher which is what many of these kids are doing Donna...I been there! and when I go back to speak I see it. True that disrespect comes from home but teachers need a defense mechanism. some of them are getting physically threatened daily..Hell, even the security guards have no power. they don't listen to them. I don't come from a school where a child gets to talk to an adult any kind of way and it doesnt slide in my book. I got up off the floor once after doing so to my mom and grandmother and I never had THAT issue again. The fear of discipline IS missing in todays young people.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T20:03:08-06:00

ID

109732

Comment

And actually we were more into OFF the air than on...Before we started we were going back and forth about the war in Iraq and the war on terror NOT being the same thing. He thinks so and I dont. I even wanted to get on the Pat Robertson thing. I even thought he was gonna start on the mayor but somehow we got on education...AGAIN. cuz we talked about it last week too. ... But we'll have to agree to disagree on that one Donna...Whooping works...for me at least, and the threat of it works with me too. Ive got cases just as you do. I whoop at home and I wish they could get it at school too whenever they get out of line. Im a BELIEVER!!!!

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T20:08:19-06:00

ID

109733

Comment

Kamikaze, you've got to watch that hype. What the research shows is that there are far fewer "frivolous" lawsuits in the schools than the tort-reformers want you to believe (same in the overall society). Simply repeating their refrain doesn't strengthen your argument for those of us who have looked beyond the hype. And of course you will find examples—but it's remarkable how well the system actually works out frivolous lawsuits if it's left alone to do its American duty. And the way to alleviate the frivolous lawsuits that do exist is not giving dumbass "immunity" that blocks families' ability to bring legitimate lawsuit. *THAT* is what I am primarily challenging y'all on today. I don't agree about the need or effectiveness of beating kids, either, or of instilling fear of being beaten into them instead of teaching anti-violence lessons over all (ahem)—but even if you believe that violence is somehow the panacea, the immunity argument is sheer idiocy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T20:08:41-06:00

ID

109734

Comment

Ive got cases just as you do. Well, the problem with this argument is that it isn't equal. If there is one case where violence—especially committed by the state—doesn't work or is applied unfairly, it's about that one case. That's how our Constitution works, or is supposed to. It's about individual rights. whenever they get out of line. As an African American, if "whooping" was allowed in school, your son would be highly more likely to be "whooped" than white kids and for lesser offenses. Same as he is much more likely to be suspended or expelled for a lesser, or more subjective, offense. Really, go read Russ' report. And I got plenty more where that came from.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T20:12:14-06:00

ID

109735

Comment

Well..lets NOT do the immunity thing. doesnt make me THAT much difference. There will be frivolous lawsuits both ways. And if a child is REALLY getting abused then its a necessary vehicle but... "abuse" has to be clearly defined in my book. And that just leaves the door open for too much bs "he grabbed my arm to hard and its bruised", "he/she grabbed me by my collar", "The teacher pushed me" "He paddled me", or "he made me do x amount of push-ups" that kind of thing. There should be a system in place to discipline these kids when they LEGITIMATELY get out of line. where there is no order there is chaos! And if a kid knows that all hes going to get is a good talking to and a 3 day vacation, I can't see where that prevents a repeat of the offense. Hell, if a student knows that he can get away with just plain jumping on a teacher then he will do it. Especially if that teacher can get sued for fighting back.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T20:16:04-06:00

ID

109736

Comment

"As an African American, if "whooping" was allowed in school, your son would be highly more likely to be "whooped" than white kids and for lesser offenses. Same as he is much more likely to be suspended or expelled for a lesser, or more subjective, offense." Could be..but last I checked you don't get in trouble in school for keeping your mouth shut when asked and completing your work. Now if he gets whooped for THAT..then we have a SERIOUS problem. but outside of that disobeying the teachers rules(and they may vary from room to room) talking back, hitting a teacher, or physically or verbally threatening a teacher or physically or verbally abusing a classmate... no ma'am!!!!! Punishable offenses. The rod won't be spared. It was allowed Donna when I was in JPS and it took one time for a coach to paddle me in front of the class for me to get a clue.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T20:22:33-06:00

ID

109737

Comment

"abuse" has to be clearly defined in my book This is very true—if you are going to allow violence as discipline (which our country probably be doing for anyone in 20 years anyway). But for now, especially outside the home, how in the world are you going to allow parents to determine what "abuse" is if there is some sort of blanket immunity so that schools and educators can't be sued? Of course, if you look at this carefully, you will see that the easy bright line between "abuse" and not comes when you don't resort to violent acts as discipline at all. Sadly, the same is true in the home. I wouldn't be nearly as against "whooping" kids if we didn't have such an abuse problem on the part of parents. As it is, many children are regularly abused with people turning their heads because the parents claim it's their right to beat their kids. So it becomes difficult to draw the line. If committing violence against kids was already illegal, then it would be easier to stop abuse against more children. Also, it goes without saying that good parents are good parents. I suspect you would do just fine as a parent and a disciplinarian if you weren't raised to believe that you need to "whoop." A huge problem with "whooping" is that many parents (and educators) believe that is what discipline is and don't push themselves to become better non-violence disciplinarians. We allow them an easy way out, so to speak. And one that hurts many children in irreparable ways. (Not every child, but one is too many.) And you talk about the problems with parenting leading to problem kids—many of those bad parents are indeed violent with their children. The absence of "whooping" ends up not being the problem. I firmly believe that if violence were removed from the equation altogether, we'd have better parents across the board because they would have to work harder at the discipline question. To match your anecdotal evidence, the best parents I've ever seen do not "whoop," and the worst ones do. That doesn't mean that whoopers can raise good kids, but it also doesn't mean that "whooping" is some magic bullet as y'all made it sound today. There are no magic bullets, and it's not just about bad parents. The culture (and yes messages their heroes send) play a role. What is marketed to them plays a role. How much TV they watch plays a role. How much quality time with parents plays a role. Whether they are made out to be criminals before they even have a chance to be one plays a role. Racism plays a role. Poverty plays a (humongous) role. The lack of hope plays a role. Having parents in prison for minor crimes plays a role. Having violent role models plays a role. Having parents old enough to not be involved in childish drama themselves all the time plays a role. And on and on.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T20:30:49-06:00

ID

109738

Comment

Could be..but last I checked you don't get in trouble in school for keeping your mouth shut when asked and completing your work. Now if he gets whooped for THAT..then we have a SERIOUS problem. Go read Russ' report, Kaze. There are a lot of things to get in trouble for between being quiet and doing your work that may not merit "whooping." And, by the way, with immunity, he could get whooped for that, and you couldn't sue. Interesting you put things like "talking back" and "verbally abusing" a classmate in there. Who is going to determine that a child is "talking back," rather than trying to have a challenging conversation? Or what is "verbal abuse"—it's whatever the teacher says it is. What if you have a bad teacher who doesn't like your son for whatever reason? I remember one of my teachers hating a very smart black student (kind of reminds me of you) because he challenged much of what she said (she was very opinionated and political) in order to have a conversation. She could have called that "talking back" because he did it. Who's to decide? If you grant immunity, only the teacher, and that's a problem. That takes parents directly out of the equation. And does it not make any sense to you that a public institution can't punish kids different ways based on what their parents want!?! That obviously can't happen. As for "spare the rod," with due respect, I think that is bullsh!t. I would paraphrase it into "spare the rod, use the brain."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T20:36:00-06:00

ID

109739

Comment

You have a point. When the whooping is not accompanied with explanation and ample follow up..it may NOT be as effective. And the best parents don't just whoop. It is tempered with talks and any spankings are followed up to make sure the child understands why it occured. That is to ensure that they know its done out of love and caring and not just because you are "mad" or "had a bad day" which some parent do. ?I don't whoop when Im mad. That defeats the purpose but my kids know there is an ultimate set of circumstances that goes with disobedience and disrespect. Ive some some pretty darn good parents who whoop their kids..mine for one. Ive seen some good ones who dont, but Ive also seen some kids who are out of control because their parents DON'T discipline them. (Did ya see "The Nanny" the other night?) I try a lot of different methods.. I dont JUST use whooping, but it is still effective for me. And all those things you named in the last paragraph DO play a role. I agree.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T20:41:17-06:00

ID

109740

Comment

Nope...we will forever disagree on this...And you KNOW that my thoughts or views can be changed or at least I can be made to ponder something more deeply(the hiphop issue)...but spare the rod..spoil the child.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2007-01-04T20:44:36-06:00

ID

109741

Comment

That's interesting. That phrase says that a child who is not beaten with a "rod," or some other appropriate substitute, is therefore spoiled. Do you really believe that? I know amazing young people (and older ones) who were never "whooped." How in the world can we account for them? Are they freaks of nature? Otherwise, you seem to be seeing my immunity point. With immunity, a parent can't demand "explanation and ample follow up." As for this: "And the best parents don't just whoop. It is tempered with talks and any spankings are followed up to make sure the child understands why it occured. " I presume you're arguing that these "best parents" could not have been effective without accompanying those talks with "whoopings." And it's great that you don't "whoop" when you're mad. Many people do, and there is nothing we can do about it when they go a little too far. (A lot too far, yes, but not those interim "littles" that later lead to the "lot" that sends children to the hospital.) I've seen some pretty good parents who "whoop" their children, too—and none of them needed to, because they were good parents. That's my point. However, the best parents I've ever seen don't. They do talk a lot, though, just without the "whooping" to help them make their point. And the worst parents inevitably take out their anger on their children. Certainly, there is no spoiling going on in those cases. And note that I've never said that a good child can't result from a situation with whooping. Obviously, that's not true. My point is that I don't believe it's the whooping that's doing the trick, and it's not worth the children who get abused by over-zealous whooping. I'm not into sacrificing some children because people were raised to think that "sparing the rod" could somehow mean that they were "spoiling their children." That's not even logical.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-04T20:58:03-06:00

ID

109742

Comment

Before I really delve into this one, I've got a question. I agree totally. That teachers in these situations are powerless. Working on a piece about that now actually. HOWEVER. Why do we let administration off the hook. You say parents don't help; administration doesn't help. I don't understand why the leaders get pass and then the burden goes back to the teacher. OMG. Could y'all see my 22 year old self "whooping" my seventeen year old students? Too many things I can say about that, and most are inappropriate. Let's just say that I feel corporal punishment past grade school is useless, and if corporal is all that's been done pre middle school.....then what?

Author

emilyb

Date

2007-01-05T00:15:16-06:00

ID

109743

Comment

As an African American, I grew up in an era when whupping was a standard disciplinary measure. In fact, my brothers and I were whupped by our parents (and school officials) on a regular basis, probably because we were always into some kind of 'devilment' (the old folks' definition of mischief). We never, ever doubted our parents' absolute, uncoditional love for us. That said, in raising my own child, my wife and I have never laid a hand on him. For me, that's probably because I know that our seemingly weekly (or were they daily?) whuppings didn't really deter my brothers and me from getting out of line...all the time. If they had, we would've only had to endure the first one. Our whupping-less son is very well-behaved, mannerable, courteous, respectful, compassionate and, thank God, highly successful undergraduate in pre-law who says he will become a public defender after law school at Ole Miss . Granted, my wife is/was much more lenient than me; however, she could always 'whip' him in line with a firm, measured voice while I only needed to give him 'the look'. In extreme situations, we revoked television, telephone, driving, visitation, shopping, dating and any other privilege we would ordinarily extend. We reinforced positive behavior with simple rewards (genuine praise and constructive criticism seem to work best), encouragement, and 'lessons learned' talks. Thus, I totally disagree with Kaze's take on discipline and corporal punishment in schools. As Donna so rightly intoned, it sends the flawed message that resorting to violence is acceptable in dealing with conflict. In a larger sense, though, I am more befuddled by Kaze's disdain for the children that he says are *outright disrespectful*, particularly when I've read (and heard) of his staunch defense of the utterly disrespectful, denigrating and misogynic lyrics of David Banner and other hip-hop/rap personas. I simply cannot square his stances. If it's OK to call our women bitches and ho's in song, then it ought to be OK to call teachers and principals the same thing! In point of fact, I don't agree with either and, therefore, Kaze can't have it both ways!

Author

Kacy

Date

2007-01-05T00:35:27-06:00

ID

109744

Comment

Kacy: in other words, Kaze don't like to be dissed. While you are talking about whuppin's, this would be an appropriate link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsVkCkyjrmA

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-05T00:42:16-06:00

ID

109745

Comment

I hate that I missed your show AGAIN, Kaze, as it sounds like another great discussion. Exactly the kind of balance that makes talk radio more interesting to listen to. I'm going to have to cut these late afternoon meetings short so that I can get off in time to listen to the show. As to corporal punishment, I believe in it because I was raised in a school system that practiced it and we didn't have nearly the same disciplinary problems that I hear about in the public schools these days. Certainly not the kind of fighting, disrespectful backtalking and cursing that my teacher friends have told me about over the years. That's not to say that it was a 100% effective deterrent or that there weren't bad kids in school in my day (I'm not that old either), but I sure thought about the consequences of getting into a playground fist fight when I knew it would result in a paddling (didn't always stop me though). I got a few whoopings (NOT BEATINGS) from my parents as a kid and while I didn't enjoy it at the time I grew up to understand the intent and the love that was behind it, and it hasn't made me an abusive person towards my own kids. I fully understand that there's a fine line between discipline and abuse. I do timeouts for the minor stuff but the more serious offenses will result in spankings and loss of privileges. But if you don't communicate why the punishment is being given and the purpose behind it, then the punishment is pointless whether it's a spanking or a timeout. Back in the day it was just understood and accepted by my parents that if I acted out in school that teachers had the option of applying the "Board of Education" to my backside. The only control that was applied was that 2 teachers had to witness the paddling, and we could only be hit a max of 3-4 times w/the paddle if I remember correctly. But I think we are too far gone as a society for corp punishment to be seriously considered as a viable solution to the discipline problems in schools. Ladd makes a valid point that the there are complex cultural variables creating the problem of unruly kids acting out in school that go beyond the ability of corp. punishment to correct. Kids are also raised by their environment, and it's a challenge for educators to cut through the behaviors these kids are learning elsewhere one way or another.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2007-01-05T00:43:10-06:00

ID

109746

Comment

Kingfish: Many was the time that I wished I could resort to using a famous Richard Pryor retort: "Well, f*&^ it then...!

Author

Kacy

Date

2007-01-05T00:50:24-06:00

ID

109747

Comment

Kacy: freakie deakie

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-05T00:57:19-06:00

ID

109748

Comment

Emilyb: its that time of night and this is just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjXJubqGo1g

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-05T00:57:59-06:00

ID

109749

Comment

That Richard Pryor clip is a riot, Kingfish. By the way, let me be clear: I did not diss Kaze; rather, I simply tried to point out the discordant views he's taken. I respect and like Kaze and (some of) his work and I consider him an emerging leader. But, I also subscribe to this axiom: unity does not require unanimity.

Author

Kacy

Date

2007-01-05T01:09:38-06:00