Spontaneous Storytelling for Morality

This morning, I looked around at the general mess left from yesterday's birthday party. I started loading dishes into the dish drainer as my eldest finished his breakfast. Then I told him to clean up the dining and living room.

Cue the angst. "But I just did it yesterday!"
"Does it look clean?"
"Nooooo! But that's because it got so messy so quickly!"
"It needs to be done, then."
"It's going to take me all day! It'll take five hours!"
"Then perhaps you need practice. I should have you do it every day."
"Then I'll never get any schoolwork done at all, because I won't have time!"

I'll spare you the rest. It went on for a while, and got ridiculous. Yes, more ridiculous than the notion that picking up toys and carrying dishes to the sink will take up five hours of every day, and taking up five hours of a day at any activity will prevent him from having the time to finish a curriculum that typically takes him 4-6 hours depending on the day, including breaks and food. (With a recent average of two, since we are close to the end of his year and half of his books are finished.) Anyways...

Improvisational storytelling in such situations comes to me so easily that I used to assume that every mother gained it as a natural skill, like the ability to change a diaper and remember what your five-year-old had for lunch. Since then, I have heard from people who tell me that my gift is not all that common. If it is inherited, I definitely inherited it from my mother, who does it all the time. On my father's side, my semi-famous great-uncle poet credited his mother's ability to invent songs and rhymes on the fly while cleaning the house, and engaging her children in the process as if they were playing a game. (They didn't exactly have television, or radio, or electricity, in the late 1800's Ukrainian slums.)

The skill is definitely strong in my line.

"Do you know what comes of this? Do you? The way you treat your mother is the way you will treat your wife. Oh yes, it's true. The way you treat your mother and your sisters, growing up, is the way you will treat your wife. Do you know what will happen? Let me tell you.

"At first she'll ask for your help when the house needs to be cleaned after a party, or when the kids are acting up and she can't keep ahead of her chores. You'll whine and complain just like you're doing here, try to blame everything on her..." I approximated (and may have exaggerated) the whine in his voice. "'Oh I won't have time for my job if I do that, and then I'll lose my job, and we won't have any money anymore!' So she'll ask at first, but she'll get tired of your emotional abuse, and she'll stop asking. She'll do everything herself. She'll be afraid to seek help from you.

"Guess what happens next. She burns out. She gets burned out, so exhausted she can't think, just working and working all the time, doing her chores and yours. And then do you know what she'll do? She'll divorce you." This produced a moment of silence, which I allowed to cultivate for a moment before picking up my narrative. "She'll divorce you for neglect, and for emotional abuse. And do you know what she'll say when she exits the courthouse after signing the divorce papers? She'll say..." Here I paused and changed my expression (and tone) from dramatic to a mixture of relief and slight disbelief. "'I don't have to wash his socks anymore. I don't have to take out his garbage anymore." The relief gives way to excitement. "I'm going to go out and see a movie tonight! I haven't gone out to a movie in ten years!"

Back to lecture mode. "How would you feel if your wife divorced you and then said that? You wouldn't like that, would you? Who do you think washes Daddy's socks? I do. And you know what? I don't mind doing it! Do you know why? It's because when I have a house to clean, or a party to set up, or misbehaving kids, I know he's got my back. You want to be like Daddy. He's a hard worker, and he cares for us. He might grumble a little when he has to take out the garbage, but he does not gripe at me, and he does not blame me. He does not say, 'I bet you fill it up so fast just to give me more work to do!'" Here, of course, I had cut in the kid-whiny tone again.

"So I'm going to make sure you learn. You're going to learn how to clean, and how to do it without complaining. I'm doing this for the sake of your wife, so that she will never have to go through what you put me through this morning. Do you understand?"

A mumbled yes. This is actually the first full vocalization from him, since all of my repeated questions have not incorporated any answer-me pauses, implicit or explicit.

"Good. Now clean the living room and dining room."

And when they came for me, there was nobody left

I have several things to say about the BP oil spill, but many people are saying them already. I may devote another post to the government regulation that led to the spill and exacerbated its detrimental effect, but for now I want to focus on a slightly different topic.

The important thing about this society is that we enforce the law for everyone, not just the people we like.

This is important, and fairly unusual throughout human history. Before this Reformation-based civilization, it was fairly common for the authorities to turn a blind eye to abuses that happened to unpopular figures. If you were a pauper accusing your lord of rape, you couldn't expect to see him put up on trial. If you were a gypsy, you would be lucky just to keep your head down and avoid being killed on sight.

Even in this illustrious country, we have had problems with 'unpopular' people. The first gun control laws were enacted to prevent the newly-freed blacks from arming themselves. Why did they need to arm themselves? If a black man was brutally beaten for the crime of walking down a certain street, the feeling among the racist supremacists was that he deserved it because he was getting 'uppity'. However, we have always as a society followed the laws that permitted 'inconvenient things' like voting rights and innocent-until-proven-guilty, 'even if' that meant championing the human rights of the minority races.

In fact, even present-day America is not immune from the tendency to categorize some people as 'unpopular', showing less sympathy when they are victimized. There are some men who rape lesbian women and believe that the women deserved that cruel treatment. However, as before, we follow those laws and prosecute these men as the criminals that they are. The important thing about our society is that we truly have that equality, and we do not set laws aside just because we don't like the victim much

Until now.

It started with AIG. Husbands and fathers found their homes besieged and death threats made against their children for the crime of receiving the bonuses that they had earned by lawful contract. The government should have intervened on their behalf, upholding the law for them, even though they are unpopular as blacks, Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals have been throughout history. Instead, Obama decided to give these people a very unlawful choice... either give up the compensation for their hours of hard work, or face ruin at the hands of an angry mob.

We saw it happen again when Toyota's upper management was hauled in front of the liberal Democrats and badgered about a vehicle problem that they were already hard at work trying to find and fix. There was no need for that kind of humiliation. They were already doing the right thing. Still, as an auto manufacturer who makes such horrible things as SUV's and trucks, they had to be shown that the unpopular members of society are no longer protected by the law.

Now it's happening with BP. The guy who got into trouble for calling Obama's demands of money a 'shakedown' ought to be praised to the skies for calling a spade a spade. They are learning what Toyota and AIG have already learned, a lesson that should chill us to the bone, such that we should be demonstrating against the government instead of against that evil, evil company who seeks to fill our vehicles with gas and our homes with heat.

Whether you are doing the right thing or not, whether you follow the laws or not, what now matters in this country is whether or not you are an unpopular minority.

If you are, then you may find  yourself bereft of the Constitutional protections once intended for all, even those whose right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is 'inconvenient' to those who wish to tear them down in vile hatred.

Sure, it's just oil companies, bank executives, and auto manufacturers now. However, Obama once spoke out in contempt of those small-town Americans, the 'bitter clingers' to 'guns and religion'. How long will it be before he comes for you? And if you cheer on the suspension of law for the sake of those whom you despise, what will protect you when he comes for you?

Shattered Dreams

Have you ever hung out with friends or coworkers and started talking about what you would do if you were rich? Usually the conversation starts the same way. "Man, if I won the lottery, I would..."

Stop. Full stop.

If you win the lottery, your winnings are taxed. If you win big, you will be taxed big. Obama is planning on putting a heavy tax on earnings over $250K. Of course, that $250K will be taxed too, at varying rates from the first dollar to the last, so you won't even net $250K. But he's decided that's as much as any reasonable person should ever make in a year, even though you'd hoped that lottery winning meant that you'd never have to work again.

You'd be better off to not buy a lottery ticket at all. The worst that could happen is that you could win, and why are you bothering to spend the ticket money? If you get lucky, it will all be taken away.

Ever been a kid in the basement with a dinky cheap guitar hoping to become the next big hit? Got your friends together, the level-headed bassman, the over-excited lead singer, the wacky drummer? You might want to rethink your plans. You're a musician, not a business. If you make it big, you'll make lots of money. If you make lots of money, Obama will take it away from you. You'd be better off just getting some midrange job and not trying to 'make it big' at all.

Same thing goes if you're a budding inventor, composer, actor... want to make it big? Watch out. You might make it big enough to attract the government's attention. All the risk you took, sleeping in your car, failure after mind-numbing failure, all the years you spent honing your art, all the college debt you accrued trying to stick out from the rest, all gone. Obama and the Democrats have decided that anyone who puts in the work and risk to make it big is destined to hand their money over to people who took neither the work nor the risk simply to make it at all.

What about small businesses? My brother, a tax accountant, clued me into this one. The common designation for a small business is an "S corporation", due to its risks and advantages. Unfortunately, "S corporations" require you to report your business earnings as income, and you do so before you start paying your employees or rent. So if you make a business income of $300K and have expenses of $250K, guess what? You're going under.

From reading what proponents of socialism have to say, I can only guess that they believe that if you take away the incentive to excel, to 'make it big', to win, that people will continue to try. They seem to believe that people will still reach for the prize, even when there is no prize to reach. Capitalism and the free market believe that they are wrong. History is on the side of capitalism and the free market in this case.

What will happen to this country when nobody bothers to risk becoming The Next Big? When inventors no longer fiddle in their garages, and teenagers no longer form impromptu bands in their basements? When nobody buys lottery tickets for fear they might win? When doctors and surgeons do as some are already planning and quit working halfway through the year to avoid making 'too much money', reducing their numbers and making it very hard to get an appointment in October?

What will become of us then?

Hope and Change!

Alright, it's been a couple of months and we've got a fuller and richer idea of what Obama means by 'hope' and 'change'. Let's take a look at what's being said, what's been said, and what is being planned for the future.

President Obama, being eternally optimistic and having run on a platform that claimed sunshine and bluebirds every day should he be elected, has been speaking doom and gloom on the economy so often that even Bill Clinton has reprimanded him on the topic. The stock market has dropped further since his election than it did in all the time W. Bush was in office, and every time he makes a speech, it takes a fall of a couple hundred points. His message is simple; the only way for this country to survive is to give him every power, and to oppose any of his decisions is to want this country to fail. As well, to want lower taxes and greater freedom is now unpatriotic.

Our 'stimulus package' was put together under the watchful eye of Nancy Pelosi, who encourages government funding of contraception and abortion services under the unapologetic (her words!) claim that we can cut government spending on education and healthcare for children by reducing the number of children. I would never have thought of that solution. My natural preference is to reduce or eliminate government spending by cutting taxpayer programs for children of rich families, but the expansion to SCHIP either has been or will be passed soon.

The changes in the package made to medical spending were put into place by Tom Daschle, who has praised Europeans above Americans for being willing to accept a 'hopeless diagnosis' for a treatable condition on the grounds that it would cost the government too much money to help you.

Robert Reich, another lawmaker who worked on the package, caused a minor stir when he pronounced that guidelines should be created for the infrastructure upgrades to ensure that construction jobs created by the work do not go to skilled construction workers or white men. We must ensure that "women and minorities" who are not construction workers or skilled professionals are the ones who ensure that our bridges are safe to cross.

But don't despair! You'll be getting tax relief, if you don't make what the government deems to be too much money, which is about $75K/year. Yeah, I know Obama said his threshhold was $250K, but then Biden, I think it was, said $150K, and someone else said $120K, so are you really surprised? Anyways, if you are not rich, i.e. making $75K/year, you'll be getting about $25/month back in your paycheck starting in April. Don't you feel lucky? It's a tax credit, not a cut, but it's evenly distributed so that it looks like a cut. Oh yes, and you will get this money even if you don't pay any taxes at all, so it isn't really a 'tax' adjustment so much as a welfare check. Basically, the government is using the IRS to send welfare checks to people who are already working, whether they want it or not, and anyone making over $75K/year, in other words, the rich, will be paying for it.

This is the Democrat definition of hope, you see. The government will be handling the redistribution of wealth. If they decide that you make 'too much' money, you will be forced to pay for the lifestyles of all the people who don't. However, even if this level of financial burden bankrupts you, it will still not be enough. Therefore, all the 'little people' who don't make 'too much' money have to learn to be content with what the government provides. Instead of negotiating your own prices with an HMO in order to obtain the medical care that you need, you must expect that if you are too expensive for the government, you will not be allowed to obtain care. You must learn to accept that which has been rationed out to you instead of seeking your own fortune.

The government will care for all your needs, and if your needs are too many, the government will see to it that the population of the needy is reduced through abortion and lack of care for the ill and elderly until the finances work. In other words, prevent hunger by killing the hungry and prevent poverty by killing the poor. The survivors will revere you for saving them from want.

Ah, let me take a moment and address the jobs situation. The rise in unemployment is actually less of an all-over set of layoffs and more targeted to a couple of specific industries, primarily construction. But don't despair, you who are losing your construction jobs! The benevolent Obama has foreseen your needs! He and the Democrats in Congress are setting up a large spending spree on upgrading roads, bridges, and highways.

Unfortunately, Reich and others advocate restrictions on this spending to ensure that the money does not go to actual construction workers and/or 'skilled professionals', especially if they are white men. That's right, despite the fact that 'whites' make up about two-thirds of this nation's population, we must make sure that they are not getting any government funding, even if that means that we cannot hire the people who actually lost their jobs in this recent rise in unemployment. Don't despair, however. Plenty of money in the stimulus package will go towards hiring biologists to study field mice and climatologists to study 'global warming', even though there is no indication of a high unemployment level among biologists or climatologists.

How will Obama pay for all these non-white non-construction workers, biologists, and climatologists? Well, next up on the agenda is supposedly a 25% cut in defense spending. That's right, since the housing market collapse has caused many lost jobs among various construction workers and associated professionals, we must pay for non-professionals and people who are not construction workers by taking money away from the people who employ carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians, and welders. With the government refusing to buy military equipment built by blue-collar workers and then refusing to hire those same blue-collar workers with the money they've taken away, I'm afraid we're in for a lot more government-subsidized people lining up for their rationed food and rationed healthcare.

Is this hope? Well, it certainly is change.

Followup to the Spanking Post

It seems that in my earlier spanking post I've attracted an anonymous poster who thinks I'm wrong about spanking. When I pointed out that I was already glad my mother spanked even while she still was doing it, this poster assumed it was because of 'early indoctrination'. How convenient it is to assume that you are right and anyone who disagrees intelligently was 'indoctrinated'. We are all indoctrinated to one degree or another. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is missing an important part of logic and reasoning.

I'll tell you what hurts a child. Among people who declare in self-righteousness that they would never spank a child because it's violent and hurtful, I see an increasing amount of name-calling. They try to control their children through shame, using words like "stupid" or "bratty" that I never use with my child. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an angry mother hiss from a nearby supermarket row, "I'm calling you a BRAT because that's what you ARE."

For heaven's sake, woman, take the kid out to the car and give him a smack on the butt. The sting will fade in less than two minutes and what it will teach him is that behavior has consequences. But if repetition makes 'stupid' and 'bratty' his identity, he's sunk! I have never, ever called my son 'stupid' and he is not allowed to call other people 'stupid'. Things, ideas, events, yes. People, no.

The truth is, people are not born knowing how to control themselves. From potty training to getting to the office on time, they need to learn how to 'take the reins' and do what they need to do. Parents who will not do what's necessary to keep control seem to be a lot more desperate when a child will not behave. A parent who keeps control merely watches calmly and might even allow further misbehavior before the child 'reaps what he sows'. That parent may barter, but he does not plead. He may speak, but he does not need to scream.

Discipline your child. Create for him a safe world in which the consequences for bad behavior are uncomfortable. Keep those consequences age-appropriate rather than instantly realistic. Young children should not be facing adult consequences. You don't have to spank every child to do it right. Any and all parts of your toolbox will depend on both parent and child. But please, please don't resort to name-calling and don't ever tear your child down.

Spanking guidelines

I get the feeling that people who decry spanking of any sort for any reason, who talk about things like brutality and unacceptable punishment, really don't appreciate how hard it is to spank correctly. I don't think they understand how carefully calculated and measured it is, how much easier it is to perform much harsher punishments, like name-calling and other emotionally-damaging attacks. So for those who don't understand how to spank for one reason or another, I present my guidelines.

Do not spank in anger or without decisiveness. Never strike any person in anger. You can't help the mother bear slap of fear, especially with a toddler. That's not likely to do them any real damage. But never actually spank a child without a clear idea of why it is necessary and a cool head.

Do not spank for genuine forgetfulness, for absent-mindedness, or for accidents. I reserve spanking for deliberate disobedience. If he throws a toy in the house, I tell him no. If he gets all excited playing and does it again, I may remove the toy for a while. If I say "Do not throw toys" and he responds by looking at me and throwing another, that is call for a spanking.

I had a particular challenge with my son in this area. If he got put to bed early for acting thoroughly tired, he would refuse to pee before bed and then wet the bed. Was he doing it deliberately? Much as I hesitate to decide that, it seemed so. However, I do not feel it is right to spank a child for bed-wetting. How did I deal with it? By making it more of a nuisance to him than was worth. A thorough impromptu shower including a hair-wash, thorough change of clothes and bedding, and answering complaints with "You wet the bed, so we have to make everything clean again."

Measure the spanking and spanking tool. I favor hand or wood, the hand because you can better gauge how hard the spanking is, and wood because it is lighter and more flexible, stinging without injuring. A wide wooden spoon is good for this, spreading out the impact. Plastic hurts more, and I don't favor it. How do I measure spankings? This is a carefully administered punishment, not a beating opportunity. Just as I used the inside of my wrist to test his bath temperature, I use my own arm or leg to test the spanking before I deliver it. (You don't have to do this every single time. Just enough to get the feel of whatever you're using.)

Make sure he knows ahead of time how many spanks and what they are for. "One spank for disobeying me, and one spank for spitting at me." That reinforces his sense of fairness, understanding exactly what is deserved and why.

I saved the most important for last. Ensure that the spanking wipes out the offense. Once it is finished, it has done the job of restoring him to good graces. Don't reward him afterwards, but do not withhold hugs and let your voice revert to it's pleasant tone. Treat him as if the offense and punishment has not happened at all. If you are raising him as a Christian, you are teaching the most important spiritual truth in this way; total forgiveness and remission of sins.

I hope my little guideline list has helped you understand how I use spanking for punishment. I was one of the lucky kids who learned how to spank from my own parents. My husband derived similar rules from his own experience. It is useful to keep in mind that what your child learns from your spanking habits will affect the way he punishes his own children, your grandchildren. And grandchildren are perfect, aren't they?