Cartoon by XKCD (http://xkcd.com/51/).

I write about stupid people pretty often so I’m not often surprised by what they do, but this surprised me. Apparently there is a group on Facebook which you can join to find out about Pox Parties in your area or to arrange to have infected items sent to you . . . → Read More: The anti-vaxers are holding Pox Parties to intentionally infect their kids.]]>

Cartoon by XKCD (http://xkcd.com/51/).

I write about stupid people pretty often so I’m not often surprised by what they do, but this surprised me. Apparently there is a group on Facebook which you can join to find out about Pox Parties in your area or to arrange to have infected items sent to you from other anti-vaxer parents. All so you can deliberately infect your kids with a potentially serious disease:

CBS 5 Investigates mail order diseases – CBS 5 – KPHO.

The Facebook group is called “Find a Pox Party in Your Area.” According to the group’s page, it is geared toward “parents who want their children to obtain natural immunity for the chicken pox.”

On the page, parents post where they live and ask if anyone with a child who has the chicken pox would be willing to send saliva, infected lollipops or clothing through the mail.

I’m sure the postal workers are just thrilled that people are sending packages containing items with a highly contagious pathogen through the postal service.  I’m willing to bet that’s a violation of a number of both federal and local laws, but I haven’t actually checked to find out.

But even if it isn’t illegal to send infectious diseases through the mail the thing these idiots aren’t considering is this: If you allow other people to expose their kids to your infected child and one of those other kids develops complications and/or dies, you could be held liable for the injury/death. 

It seems these parties have been going on for a few years now and the folks over at the Science Based Medicine blog wrote about it last year. Here’s the part on Pox Parties and liability:

“Chicken pox parties” present an interesting case. For the parent supplying the diseased child to the “party” the prospect of liability should be particularly troubling. She is not negligently spreading her child’s disease — she isintentionally spreading it. Intentional torts automatically subject the defendant to the possibility of punitive damages, which are usually based on the defendant’s net worth. The whole point is to make sure the defendant is financially punished for her actions — in other words, to take enough money that it hurts.

Punitive damages are on top of actual damages, such as medical bills, and pain and suffering. As in the above hypothetical, while the recovery of parents subjecting their children to the virus can be reduced — perhaps eliminated in this case — because of their actions, the award to the children cannot, and it is the children who are entitled to punitive damages. It could turn out to be a very expensive party.

But hey, it’s not like people sue at the drop of a hat in this country, right? And, really, what’s the worst thing that can happen from Chickenpox? Other than it could kill you (about 100 deaths a year on average), complications can include herpes zoster (shingles) later in life, secondary bacterial infections in the lesions (usually superficial, but can lead to bacteremia), it can cause a number of neurological disorders including acute cerebellar ataxia, and resperitory  (varicella pneumonia) and liver complications. These tend to occur more often in adults who catch the disease and people (kids and adults) who are immunocompromised, but it can happen to anyone.

I want to emphasize the possibility of your kid developing shingles as an adult, because a lot of folks who are deliberately infecting their kids seem to think they’re giving them life-long immunity. You aren’t. Your body can’t eliminate the chickenpox virus, instead it becomes dormant and could return as herpes zoster — shingles — later in life:

Varicella zoster virus can become latent in the nerve cell bodies and less frequently in non-neuronal satellite cells of dorsal root, cranial nerve or autonomic ganglion, without causing any symptoms. Years or decades after a chickenpox infection, the virus may break out of nerve cell bodies and travel down nerve axons to cause viral infection of the skin in the region of the nerve. The virus may spread from one or more ganglia along nerves of an affected segment and infect the corresponding dermatome (an area of skin supplied by one spinal nerve) causing a painful rash. Although the rash usually heals within two to four weeks, some sufferers experience residual nerve pain for months or years, a condition called postherpetic neuralgia. Exactly how the virus remains latent in the body, and subsequently re-activates is not understood.

Throughout the world the incidence rate of herpes zoster every year ranges from 1.2 to 3.4 cases per 1,000 healthy individuals, increasing to 3.9–11.8 per year per 1,000 individuals among those older than 65 years. Antiviral drug treatment can reduce the severity and duration of herpes zoster if a seven- to ten-day course of these drugs is started within 72 hours of the appearance of the characteristic rash.

The chicken pox vaccine is 90% effective in preventing the disease and nearly 100% effective in insuring that the 10% who do catch it don’t suffer complications from it. Why would you choose to intentionally infect your kids with a disease that could potentially be so dangerous when there is a vaccine that will most likely keep them from ever catching it in the first place? The only reason I can think of is stupidity.

As for mailing infected items back and forth, that’s criminally idiotic:

CBS 5 producers found others asking for more dangerous pathogens. Two people on the Facebook page were looking for measles, mumps, and rubella.

I guess stupidity is also contagious.

“We had a report of [Tabor] walking around his neighborhood holding a Kevlar helmet and threatening to bust out windows,” Stancil told ABCNews.com today. “In the process . . . → Read More: Soldier uses torture on his 4-year-old daughter.]]> 27-year-old U.S. Army Sergeant Joshua Ryan Tabor has served 15 months in Iraq and apparently he picked up some less than appropriate parenting techniques while he was there:

“We had a report of [Tabor] walking around his neighborhood holding a Kevlar helmet and threatening to bust out windows,” Stancil told ABCNews.com today. “In the process of talking to Tabor’s girlfriend about what was going on, we learned that he had also been abusing his daughter.”

Stancil said that when the cops coaxed the little girl out of the bathroom they saw that she was covered in “multiple bruises pretty much all over her body.”

“She was very open with us,” Stancil said of the young girl, whose name is not being released because she is a minor. “She basically came right out and said, ‘Daddy does this to me. He uses his hands.’”

Both the girl and the father admitted to the torture, even detailing how Tabor would sit the girl on the edge of the bathroom sink and hold her head down until it was nearly submerged in water, dunking her if she refused to recite the alphabet, said Stancil.

Yes, the terrible thing this little girl did that prompted her punishment was refusing to recite the alphabet.

But at least Tabor is being upfront and honest about what he’s done:

Tabor told authorities that “his purpose was to punish her by putting her in the water because he knows she is afraid of it and he wanted her to cooperate.”

“She said her letters after that,” Tabor told the cops, admitting that he had grown frustrated with the girl after practicing the letters for “approximately three hours.”

After three hours of practice I’d refuse to say the fucking alphabet as well.

It seems Tabor felt that his daughter was not mentally up to where she should be for her age. And we all know that the best way to motivate a mentally deficient child is by repeatedly dunking their head into a sink full of hot water. Tabor’s girlfriend may also end up facing charges in the incident. She noted that Tabor has an “anger management problem” to police. Gee, ya think?

Oh, and according to investigators, the 4-year-old girl seemed quite articulate and without any developmental problems. Though after living with this asshole for the past couple of months – he has joint-custody in five months increments – she’ll probably need some therapy in the future.

Mejia’s son – one of four . . . → Read More: Mom calls police when her son refuses to stop playing video games.]]> A Ms. Angela Mejia lost her shit when she woke up in the middle of the night to find her 14-year-old son playing video games hours after she had told him to go to bed. Out of frustration she ended up calling 911 to report her son to police:

Mejia’s son – one of four children the 49-year-old is raising alone – was playing “Grand Theft Auto,” an exceedingly violent video in which the gamer assumes the role of ladder-climbing criminal.

An argument ensued as Mejia unplugged her son’s PlayStation. Then, this mad-as-hell mother dialed 911. Police responded and managed to talk the boy into shutting off the game and going to sleep.

“They (police) were just like, ‘Chill out. Go to bed,’ ” the boy told the Herald.

The details in this news item are brief so it’s probably unfair to judge, but I can remember being 14 and getting into arguments with my parents over stuff and I can tell you this: They never had to call the police in to deal with me.

Were my parents perfect? Far from it and there’s probably plenty of situations they could’ve handled better, but then the same could be said of me. They made it clear, however, that they had rules for a reason and that they were doing their best to look out for my better interests whether I could see the truth of that or not at the time. We had our fair share of screaming arguments and there were times I know they were so frustrated as to want to smack me silly, but call the police?

The closest we ever got to that was the one time I stole some candy and rolls of cap-gun caps from a from a store at the age of 8 or 9 — not sure how old I was or what store it was, but my mother will probably remember — after asking my mom to buy them and being told no. Later that day she caught me with them and marched my ass back into that store where she made me return what I hadn’t already used, offer an apology for stealing, and pay for all of it out of what small savings I had. She asked the man at the store if he wanted to press charges, I can remember my heart stopping as I held my breath at the time, and he said that it wouldn’t be necessary as I had just made amends. I don’t recall a lot of my early childhood, but I can clearly remember her telling me how lucky I was that he didn’t want to press charges as we marched right back on out of there. I don’t know if she really would have called the police if the man had said yes or not, but I wouldn’t bet against it even today. There were some things my mother just didn’t abide by and I’m a better man for it.

Somehow I don’t think Ms. Mejia has that kind of fortitude:

Mejia said she approves of athletic-themed videos, but as for “Grand Theft Auto,” she said, “I would never buy that kind of video. No way. I called (police) because if you don’t respect your mother, what are you going to do in your life?”

So not only is the kid disobeying her by staying up late playing video games, but he’s playing games she doesn’t approve of and she doesn’t do anything about it?

I can’t recall at what age I finally allowed Courtney to play Grand Theft Auto III, but I was still working at Ford Motor Company at the time and that was at least four years ago, so she was probably 14 or 15. She was right around the age of the kid in this story at least. Up until that point I hadn’t even allowed her to be in the same room when I was playing the game due to the content. Every now and then she’d ask if she could play it and after much consideration of where she was maturity-wise and the content of the game I eventually said OK. It wasn’t long after that that I got into a rather heated argument with a coworker who suggested that I only had myself to blame if Courtney ended up becoming a prostitute someday because I allowed her to play GTA III, but that’s a whole other story in itself.

The point being that Courtney respected my decision not to allow her to play the game until I felt she was ready for it. She had that respect because I made it clear to her that I had concerns over the content and felt that the time wasn’t right for her to be exposed to it. She wasn’t happy with the decision, but she understood that I wasn’t withholding it just to be a dick. As it turned out, she only wanted to play the game so she could drive around the city crashing cars and doing the stunts. She didn’t care about the actual story at all so she never saw most of the content. She did a few of the missions, but mostly she just took great joy in launching her vehicle off of whatever nearby ramp she could find to watch it smash into traffic and then giggling as though it was the funniest thing in the world.

Again I’m not privy to all the details of Ms. Mejia’s situation so I probably shouldn’t judge, but it seems like she’s doing it wrong.

Take Nebraska’s Child Safe-Haven law. Like similar laws in many other states it allows parents of children . . . → Read More: Nebraska learns a lesson in unintended consequences.]]> I always say that before you pass a law you should carefully consider whether or not you understand the full implications it holds. What sounds like a great idea may, in practice, come with some unitended consequences.

Take Nebraska’s Child Safe-Haven law. Like similar laws in many other states it allows parents of children who feel they cannot care for them to drop them off at a local hospital without fear of being prosecuted for abandonment. Unlike the other state’s laws, the Nebraska law allows not just parents, but anyone to drop off a kid and there’s no age limit on the child. It sounds like a good idea. After all if a kid isn’t being cared for properly it’s probably best that he be given up to the state.

The trouble is they didn’t anticipate how many people would take advantage of that law nor did they anticipate that parents would drive from other states to drop off their kids:

A Michigan mother drove roughly 12 hours to Omaha, so she could abandon her 13-year-old son at a hospital under the state’s unique safe-haven law, Nebraska officials said Monday.

The boy from the Detroit area is the second teenager from outside Nebraska and 18th child overall abandoned in the state since the law took effect in July.

[...] Last week, a 14-year-old girl from Iowa was left at an Omaha hospital by her grandparents. The girl has since been returned to her family.

It would seem there are a lot of families out there struggling with parenting issues and the Nebraska law is bringing them out into the open. Needless to say this wasn’t what they had intended:

“I certainly recognize and can commiserate and empathize with families across our state and across the country who are obviously struggling with parenting issues, but this is not the appropriate way of dealing with them, whether you’re in Nebraska or whether you’re in another state,” said Todd Landry, who heads the state’s Department of Health and Human Services’ division of children and family services.

[...] State officials have stressed that the safe-haven law should be used only for children in immediate danger; some worry the broadly written law could make the state a dumping ground for unwanted children.

State officials have said parents and caregivers need to understand there is no guarantee an abandoned child could be returned to them if they change their minds. The have encouraged parents to seek other resources before resorting to abandonment.

Lawmakers have spoken about the need to re-examine the law, but the Legislature doesn’t reconvene until January. Gov. Dave Heineman has been reluctant to call a rare special session.

Landry declined to comment on whether a special session was needed, but he did say Monday that a new law is needed to specifically address infants in danger. Two children coming from out of state is clear evidence changes are needed, he said.

“We need to get back to the intent of the law,” he said. “The intent of the law was always the protection of newborns in immediate danger of being harmed.”

It’s those pesky unintended consequences once again. They’ll come back to bite you in the ass every time.

One would hope this would spur a national conversation on what to do to help all the struggling families out there, but chances are they’ll just change the Nebraska law and go back to ignoring the problem. Kids with behavioral problems will continue to not receive the counseling they need and parents will continue to struggle to deal with their kids and the problems will never be resolved.

Nearly 3,000 respondents in two separate What They Play polls concluded that drinking beer and watching pornography were less objectionable . . . → Read More: Poll says parents more worried about video games than beer or porn.]]> If a poll from the folks at What They Play.com is accurate then there are some parents out there with some seriously fucked up priorities. The press release for the survey is up at GamePolitics.com:

Nearly 3,000 respondents in two separate What They Play polls concluded that drinking beer and watching pornography were less objectionable activities for children than playing certain video games. Further, viewing violence was more acceptable than seeing content involving sex and sexuality within games.

[...] According to WTP’s data, here’s what parents found most offensive in video games:

• a man and woman having sex (37%)
• two men kissing (27%)
• a graphically severed head (25%)
• multiple use of the F-word (9%).

Seriously, what the fuck? This is especially confusing seeing as there are very few (and none of them mainstream) video games with graphic sexual content in them and yet they’re more concerned about sex in video games than real sex in porn?

Dr. Cherly Olson, co-author of Grand Theft Childhood, says that unfamiliarity may be part of the reason:

Although these findings seem surprising at first, they hint at fears parents have about video games. To some parents, video games are full of unknowable dangers. While researching for Grand Theft Childhood, parents we spoke with in focus groups often bemoaned the fact that they didn’t know how to use game controls – and felt unequipped to supervise or limit video game play. Of course, parents don’t want their children drinking alcohol, but that’s a more familiar risk.

On the plus side, with more and more people playing video games well into adulthood the next generation of parents should be better equipped to make decisions for their kids on what games are appropriate than today’s parents. I suppose the reason I find this so surprising is because I am one of those parents.

The #1 Christian entertainment media analysis service on the Internet!  We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed moral decision for yourself whether a film is fit!

Take for example the study cited in this New York . . . → Read More: Kids prefer any food that comes in a McDonald’s wrapper.]]> We’ve known for years that advertising plays a big role in consumer choices, a fact that makes Madison Avenue ad people a lot of money, but is it tantamount to brainwashing? I’ve never really thought so, but some recent studies seem to suggest otherwise.

Take for example the study cited in this New York Times article. Researchers took a bunch of kids and served them food from McDonald’s. Some of the food came in traditional McDonald’s wrappers and some came in plain white wrappers, but the important thing to remember here was that it was all McDonald’s food products:

Hamburgers, french fries, chicken nuggets, and even milk and carrots all taste better to children if they think they came from McDonald’s, a small study suggests.

In taste tests with 63 children ages 3 to 5, there was only a slight preference for the McDonald’s-branded hamburger over one wrapped in plain paper, not enough to be statistically significant. But for all the other foods, the McDonald’s brand made all the difference.

Almost 77 percent, for example, thought that McDonald’s french fries served in a McDonald’s bag tasted better, compared with 13 percent who liked the fries in a plain white bag. Apparently carrots, too, taste better if they are served on paper with the McDonald’s name on it. More than 54 percent preferred them, compared with 23 percent each for those who liked the unbranded carrots and those who thought they tasted the same.

That’s pretty significant and says a lot about how much brand image impacts children’s preferences. Here’s a bit more on how the results broke down:

Researchers ran taste tests on all five food items. First they served one-quarter of a McDonald’s hamburger wrapped in a McDonald’s wrapper, and another quarter in plain paper. Then they tried chicken nuggets in a McDonald’s bag with the red arches logo, and identical nuggets in a white bag. The third course was three french fries in a McDonald’s bag marked with the arches and the phrase “We love to see you smile,” and three fries in a matched white bag with no design.

Then the children tasted milk in a McDonald’s cup with a straw, and milk in a plain cup with an identical straw. Finally, they were served two baby carrots placed on a McDonald’s french fries bag and two carrots on a plain white bag. For each test they were asked if one tasted better, or if there was no difference. The study appears in the August issue of The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

Fifty-nine percent of the children preferred McDonald’s chicken nuggets compared with 18 percent who preferred the plain product and 23 percent who saw no difference.

Even milk tasted better in a McDonald’s cup, with more than 61 percent preferring it compared with 21 percent who liked the unbranded milk and 18 percent who thought they tasted the same.

Think about that for a moment. The only difference in the foods was that one came in a McDonald’s wrapper and one didn’t and at the time of the study McDonald’s didn’t even offer carrots and yet the wrapper still influenced children’s preferences. I personally know of three-year-old kids who can’t even say the word “McDonald’s” that can sing the “I’m lovin’ it” na-na-na-na-na jingle and do so, often, to let their parents know they want to go to McDonald’s. That’s a pretty powerful grip on a very young mind.

This will only feed into the ongoing debate about commercial television aimed at children because it’s not just McDonald’s that has a heavy ad campaign aimed at the youngin’s. Turn on the Disney Channel or Nickelodeon and the ads are wall-to-wall toys and junk food. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the shows on Disney are just half-hour advertisements for Disney products to begin with. You can bet this will lead to more calls for regulations.

I’m not entirely sure that regulations are the answer as much as parent education and involvement. There is a tendency to claim that parents are overwhelmed by the pressure created by all this advertising — even the NYT article above includes a quote to that effect — but the simple truth remains that parents still have the ability to say “no” and to turn off the TV. They just need to be willing to do it. It probably wouldn’t hurt to teach your kids a little critical thinking skills along the way so they can recognize when they’re being manipulated by advertisers. Sure your five year old isn’t going to pick up on that right away, but start early and by the time they’re an adult they may have a pretty formidable arsenal for assessing claims that are thrown at them not just by Madison Avenue, but everyone.