I had to wipe my tears with a crumpled-up napkin I'd found in the glove compartment. I was driving to the mall so my kids could run off some excess energy at the indoor playground, and my son asked me why I was crying. When I told him it was because of what I'd heard on the radio, he--quite sensibly--opined that "Maybe we shouldn't listen to this radio station [NPR] any more." I smiled and told him that would make sense, but Mama had to know what was going on in the world.
And what was going on that made me cry in the car was the news that 20 elementary school children in Newtown, CT were dead, along with six adults from their school, and the shooter. Since then it's been revealed that the shooter's mother was a teacher at the school, whom he'd also shot and killed at home earlier in the day.
I could only wonder what kind of person would do such a thing. And what kind of world do we live in that produces such people? Because this was not an isolated event. Sure, the fact that it was an elementary school was a new twist, but earlier this week someone shot up a shopping mall in Oregon. Two weeks ago a young man shot his father with a bow and arrow as he taught class at a community college in Wyoming (after fatally stabbing his father's girlfriend at their home). A few months ago someone else shot up a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin. And a month before that, someone else shot up a movie theatre in Colorado. Why do so many people resort to indiscriminate violence as the solution to their problems? Why are they so unaware or uncaring of the pain and suffering they'll inflict on people who are in no way responsible for the wrongs committed against them?
Not long after arriving at the mall playground, I saw part of the answer. Three boys, all the same age or not much younger than the majority of victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School, were running around pretending to shoot everyone with their index fingers. And laughing as they did it. When one of them pointed his 'gun' at me and I shook my head 'no,' he yelled, "Bang bang!" He was about six years old. I informed him sternly that guns are not toys, and it's not a fun game to pretend to kill people. His two friends overheard me and came over, pointed their index fingers at me, and opened fire, apparently now with semi-automatic index finger-guns. Then they ran away, laughing. The mother of the two boys who came later, who were apparently brothers, was sitting nearby and saw the whole thing. She was smiling.
A little while later, after the boy who 'shot' me first had left, my son Spencer began playing with the brothers. Very quickly I found myself having to give him the same lecture I'd given the first boy. I told him that I understood he was playing with those other boys, but he wasn't allowed to play that game, and if that's all they wanted to do, then he'd have to find someone else to play with. They began just chasing each other, sans guns. I would have preferred him not to play with them at all, but he has to learn to pick his own friends, and he was obeying me. I know this because I was watching. Closely. Unlike the other boys' mother.
After a couple of minutes, Spencer came over crying. One of the brothers had pushed him. I told him that if he did that, then he wasn't really a friend, and he shouldn't play with him. But Spencer is forgiving (or at least really enjoys playing with other kids) so he went back. The boy's mother either didn't know what had happened, or didn't care. A little while later Spencer was crying again. This time the boy had pushed him off one of the climbing structures, and Spencer had landed hard on the floor. The boy's mother pulled him over to her seat and told him to "Go say you're sorry." The boy refused. His mother sat him down next to her and told him he couldn't play anymore until he said he was sorry. I told Spencer that even if he did apologize, I didn't want them playing together anymore. Spencer agreed. The other brother came over and invited Spencer to play with "just me." Spencer went. The 'pusher' saw Spencer and his brother playing and got up from his seat. His mother asked, "Are you going to say you're sorry?" The boy said he was, so she let him go. He went in the opposite direction of Spencer, clearly with no intention of apologizing. His mother watched him go, shook her head, then went back to playing with her phone. I watched the little hooligan make his way around the play yard back to the climbing structure, where his brother and Spencer were playing, now joined by my daughter Naomi. And then I heard a banshee shriek I know very well. This boy had now pushed Naomi off the structure, too.
The boy's mother made him stay with her this time, but kept him occupied with snacks while she gave her other son a few more minutes to play. When it was finally (mercifully) time for them to leave, the boy who hadn't pushed my kids threw a temper tantrum, and only promises of pizza and ice cream (for both of them) could entice him to leave the play area.
That child probably won't grow up to be a mass murderer. But what did he learn today? He learned that after you push and hurt other children, you get pizza and ice cream. He learned that bad behavior, even violent behavior, doesn't result in negative consequences. And he'll remember, when things get difficult when he's older, how much fun it was to run around and pretend to kill people, and how much easier life was back then.
What mothers do matters, but we're not the only ones who influence our children. Sometimes we do our best to teach them proper behavior and give them plenty of love, attention, and guidance, and they still turn out to do these horrific things.
I'm noticing a trend. It's too early to begin to speculate about motive regarding the Connecticut shooter, but we do know a few things about him. He was 20 years old, and has been described as quiet, reserved, and highly intelligent. He came from a loving home, and had no known criminal record.
The Oregon shooter was 22 years old, and was described by friends as being a really nice guy in high school, popular with the other kids, and having a heart of gold. School administrators described him as having average talent and earning average grades, with no record of disciplinary issues. The only trigger anyone can point to is the fact the he had recently broken up with his girlfriend, though he'd seemed to be dealing with that OK. His dream was to move to Hawaii.
The Wyoming guy was 25, had a Bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering, a Master's degree in Electrical Engineering, and was working a low-end, blue-collar job for a utility. He lived in a rooming house and was described as shy and socially awkward. He also had Asperger's Syndrome, which he believed his father 'gave him.' He had no criminal history.
The Wisconsin shooter was 40, and had a history of behavioral misconduct and affiliations with hate groups.
The Colorado shooter was 24, and had been studying for his Ph.D. in neuroscience until he withdrew from the program after failing his oral exams. He was described as quiet, responsible, and nerdish, raised in an upscale section of San Diego and once worked at a summer camp for needy children. He'd never given any indications of problematic behavior until his academic career began to fall apart.
With the exception of the Wisconsin shooter, they were all promising young adults. Most came from loving homes. They were all most likely raised to believe that they could accomplish anything they set their minds to, and were encouraged to pursue their dreams, expecting they'd be successful. Two were well educated, but found that in real life, you don't automatically get on the team just because you showed up at tryouts. In the adult world you have to work hard, and sometimes hard work isn't enough. You still have to deal with disappointment, despite your best efforts. And when things don't go your way, you don't get to throw a temper tantrum and have someone offer you a cookie to stop. Two specifically targeted a parent. Only one is still alive today.
As parents, we want to protect our kids, but we also have to teach them how to cope with things not working out the way they want. In order for them to learn to deal with disappointment, they need to sometimes be disappointed, and that means we have to let them fully experience it. We can comfort them, but we can't fix it for them. We have to let them know that some behavior is simply not acceptable, and punish them for it, even if it inconveniences us. We have to let them know that they must meet certain expectations, and they don't get a prize or a passing grade just for trying. The world doesn't really care about their self esteem once they're no longer children or teenagers. Life can be harsh, it can be unfair, and we're doing them a real disservice if we lead them to believe otherwise. And even when we do all that, we still have to help them navigate through childhood in a culture that expects absolutely nothing of them until they're 18 or 22, at which time they are expected to be fully-functioning adults.
In the days and weeks to come, there will be talk about gun control, increased security in the schools, zero tolerance policies, anything that might better protect us from the monsters who sadly aren't imaginary. Those are worthy and useful conversations to have. But what we really need to talk about is a culture that actively discourages children and teenagers from preparing for life as adults. Take away the guns, and those who want to kill will use knives or bows and arrows. Increase security at the schools, and the criminals will find ways to get to their targets, and everyone else will become accustomed at a young age to living in a police state. Let's not waste too much time with the symptoms; we need to address the cause if we're ever going to end this.
All I wanted to do yesterday was hug my kids. I know I wasn't alone in that. I want to protect my kids from those horrors. But I won't turn off the radio, even when it makes me cry, because that's the world we live in, and I have to know what the reality is if I'm going to live in this world, and prepare my kids for it.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The Chicken, the Egg, and the Retail Dilemma
Not only is it old news, but it's practically ancient history by now that several retailers began their Black Friday sales on Thanksgiving evening. I responded by ignoring the Thanksgiving Day sales with as much enthusiasm as I ignore the Black Friday sales. Having been forced to participate in a run on Cabbage Patch Kids at Toys R Us with my mother when I was about eight years old, I have a pretty negative reaction to the mob mentality that comes with the cattle-call pursuit of STUFF that is the backbone of doorbuster sales. Even though the Cabbage Patch Kid was for me, I knew back then that it just wasn't worth it. Sure, I was glad I got Francis Xavier (who later had a bow tied in his hair and was re-Christened Crystal Something-Or-Other). But if I'd known that I'd have to stand in line with a couple hundred adults and a (very) few children, then go stampeding with them to the very back of the store, and then witness grown-ups ripping dolls out of each others hands and pushing each other down, I think I would have chosen to do without Francis Xavier/Crystal Something-Or-Other.
Of course, after months of pre-election coverage and weeks of election post mortem, the talk shows on NPR that narrate my errands during the week were trying to fill the election vacuum with discussions about the new trend in Black Friday sales: starting them on Thursday, regardless of the fact that it's still Thanksgiving. And what struck me was the claim the retailers kept repeating over and over again: We're only trying to give the customers what they want. If they want to shop on Thanksgiving, then we want to provide them with that opportunity.
With a few notable exceptions, nobody wants to shop on Thanksgiving. What people do want, what many people need in this crappy economy, are the deals. And if retailers are only offering the good deals on Thanksgiving, then people are going to shop on Thanksgiving. Of course, if the retailers wait until their normal week-day opening time on Friday morning to offer the great deals, the customers would happily do their shopping at that time. But the retailers don't want to wait until 9 or 10 AM Friday morning, because they mistakenly believe that being open an additional 12 hours will beat out their competitors and improve their bottom line.
Why do I say they 'mistakenly' believe this? First because people will go for the deals, regardless of when the stores offer them. Second, because people only have a certain amount of money to spend and shopping to do, and forcing them to get it done earlier means they won't do it later. The New York Times recently reported that even though sales on Thanksgiving Day were up from last year (most likely because many stores were open more hours on Thursday compared to last year), Black Friday sales were down from 2011. Overall sales of the weekend (if you can really call the five-day period beginning with Thanksgiving and ending with Cyber Monday a weekend) were up a bit from last year, but the evidence suggests that would have happened anyway.
But the retailers will only look at the improved sales from Thanksgiving, and convince themselves that if people were lining up at the doors at 8 PM, then that means they really want to be shopping at 4 PM, and that's an extra four hours of sales, which means an extra four hours to earn a profit (not that that's why they're doing it--they only want to give the customers what they want, after all). And since there's zero chance of the economy improving significantly in the next twelve months and plenty of data suggesting it's going to get worse, the shoppers with dutifully show up for the great deals whenever they're offered. And that will improve next Thanksgiving's sales, which will tell the retailers that the customers really want the stores to open at noon, and, well, you see where this is going.
In the meantime, Black Friday sales and early and mid-December sales will decrease, keeping the overall holiday shopping frenzy reasonably stable, with the modest increases or decreases (based on overall economic health) being spread thinner and thinner over the ever-expanding 'Holiday Season,' further diluting the meaning of the season and reinforcing the idea that our primary purpose in life is to be consumers, not citizens with a heritage to celebrate, a religion to observe, or families to enjoy.
Retailers and shoppers, supply and demand, chickens and their eggs. Which came first? In this case, for as long as the retailers have the most sought-after prize (good deals on stuff people want), the retailers make the rules. Only when we stop behaving according to the retailers' assumption that we're nothing more than consumers can we begin asserting ourselves as people.
Of course, after months of pre-election coverage and weeks of election post mortem, the talk shows on NPR that narrate my errands during the week were trying to fill the election vacuum with discussions about the new trend in Black Friday sales: starting them on Thursday, regardless of the fact that it's still Thanksgiving. And what struck me was the claim the retailers kept repeating over and over again: We're only trying to give the customers what they want. If they want to shop on Thanksgiving, then we want to provide them with that opportunity.
With a few notable exceptions, nobody wants to shop on Thanksgiving. What people do want, what many people need in this crappy economy, are the deals. And if retailers are only offering the good deals on Thanksgiving, then people are going to shop on Thanksgiving. Of course, if the retailers wait until their normal week-day opening time on Friday morning to offer the great deals, the customers would happily do their shopping at that time. But the retailers don't want to wait until 9 or 10 AM Friday morning, because they mistakenly believe that being open an additional 12 hours will beat out their competitors and improve their bottom line.
Why do I say they 'mistakenly' believe this? First because people will go for the deals, regardless of when the stores offer them. Second, because people only have a certain amount of money to spend and shopping to do, and forcing them to get it done earlier means they won't do it later. The New York Times recently reported that even though sales on Thanksgiving Day were up from last year (most likely because many stores were open more hours on Thursday compared to last year), Black Friday sales were down from 2011. Overall sales of the weekend (if you can really call the five-day period beginning with Thanksgiving and ending with Cyber Monday a weekend) were up a bit from last year, but the evidence suggests that would have happened anyway.
But the retailers will only look at the improved sales from Thanksgiving, and convince themselves that if people were lining up at the doors at 8 PM, then that means they really want to be shopping at 4 PM, and that's an extra four hours of sales, which means an extra four hours to earn a profit (not that that's why they're doing it--they only want to give the customers what they want, after all). And since there's zero chance of the economy improving significantly in the next twelve months and plenty of data suggesting it's going to get worse, the shoppers with dutifully show up for the great deals whenever they're offered. And that will improve next Thanksgiving's sales, which will tell the retailers that the customers really want the stores to open at noon, and, well, you see where this is going.
In the meantime, Black Friday sales and early and mid-December sales will decrease, keeping the overall holiday shopping frenzy reasonably stable, with the modest increases or decreases (based on overall economic health) being spread thinner and thinner over the ever-expanding 'Holiday Season,' further diluting the meaning of the season and reinforcing the idea that our primary purpose in life is to be consumers, not citizens with a heritage to celebrate, a religion to observe, or families to enjoy.
Retailers and shoppers, supply and demand, chickens and their eggs. Which came first? In this case, for as long as the retailers have the most sought-after prize (good deals on stuff people want), the retailers make the rules. Only when we stop behaving according to the retailers' assumption that we're nothing more than consumers can we begin asserting ourselves as people.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
What Are We Eating?
I wanted to make a simple supper for my family last night. Soup and bread. No problem, right?
Well, a normal person would go out and buy a can of Pillsbury Flaky Biscuits and a few cans of Campbell's Chunky New England Clam Chowder, and have supper ready in about 30 minutes.
But as I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm not normal.
I measured the correct amounts of milk, honey, eggs, butter, flour, salt, and yeast into my bread machine, waited nearly two hours for those ingredients to be kneaded and allowed to rise, then shaped the dough by hand into pinwheel rolls. Next I brushed melted butter on the rolls, then left them to rise again for another 45 minutes. After that I was finally able to put them in the oven to bake for about 30 minutes.
I also chopped two cups of onions, peeled and diced six small potatoes, cooked and diced four ounces of bacon, then put all that together with milk, heavy cream, and, of course clams (canned, not fresh--I do have my limits after all!). Between preparation and cooking, the chowder took about three hours.
Why did I do all that?
I'm not a contender for Mother-of-the-Year. I'm not a masochist. I'm not looking for bragging rights. (OK, maybe a little on the bragging rights.)
Well, a normal person would go out and buy a can of Pillsbury Flaky Biscuits and a few cans of Campbell's Chunky New England Clam Chowder, and have supper ready in about 30 minutes.
But as I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm not normal.
I measured the correct amounts of milk, honey, eggs, butter, flour, salt, and yeast into my bread machine, waited nearly two hours for those ingredients to be kneaded and allowed to rise, then shaped the dough by hand into pinwheel rolls. Next I brushed melted butter on the rolls, then left them to rise again for another 45 minutes. After that I was finally able to put them in the oven to bake for about 30 minutes.
I also chopped two cups of onions, peeled and diced six small potatoes, cooked and diced four ounces of bacon, then put all that together with milk, heavy cream, and, of course clams (canned, not fresh--I do have my limits after all!). Between preparation and cooking, the chowder took about three hours.
Why did I do all that?
I'm not a contender for Mother-of-the-Year. I'm not a masochist. I'm not looking for bragging rights. (OK, maybe a little on the bragging rights.)
I did it because of partially hydrogenated soybean oil, xanthan gum, TBHQ, monosodium glutamate (MSG), modified
food starch, flavoring, sodium phosphate, and succinic acid. These are the things my family avoided ingesting because I didn't go with the 30-minute supper.
Some of these are simple chemical processes that have been proven (or at least are widely believed) to be completely benign to humans. However some of them aren't.
We've all heard the warnings about avoiding trans fats, which means avoiding partially hydrogenated oils. Consumption of trans fats can increase the risk of coronary heart disease. Furthermore, the process of hydrogenation typically involves the use of an alkene, and the simplest and most commonly used alkene is ethylene. Ethylene is listed with the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) as a class 3 carcinogen. Granted, a class 3 carcinogen has a relatively low risk of actually causing cancer, as it's defined as being "not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans." Compare that to classes 1 and 2, which are "definitely" and "probably" carcinogenic, respectively. However "not classifiable" is a lot different from "probably not," which is class 4. With as much as we still don't know about cancer, I'd prefer not to take my chances.
TBHQ, or tert-Butylhydroquinone, is also used as a corrosion inhibitor in biodeisel. In addition to being a food additive, it's added to varnishes, lacquers, resins, and oil field additives as well. Now that's multitasking!
Modified food starch is a process that's used to thicken foods and make wallpaper adhesive. Sure, I can see how that could be useful.
What can I say about the ingredient 'flavoring?' What exactly is that, anyway?
And finally, sodium phosphate, great as a food additive, cleaning agent, stain remover, and degreaser. Yummy!
Maybe you believe that God designed humanity to live in harmony with his creation, providing all that we need for sustenance in the produce and animal life of the earth. Or maybe you believe that we are the products of billions of years of evolution. Either way, the fact remains that the human body was not designed to require the services of a trained chemist in order to meet our nutritional needs.
Yes, it took more work to make the rolls and chowder from scratch. But I also doubled the recipe for the chowder, and we froze the remainder, so my next simple soup and bread supper will be a lot simpler. And the rolls? The ones I made last night are my husband's favorite, and I wanted to make up for having him do the single parent thing all weekend while I was away at a retreat, so I decided it was worth the extra effort. But I also have a recipe for cornbread, which takes about 35 minutes (preparation and cooking) that he also likes. Less beloved by my husband but adored by my kids are my baking powder biscuits, which take about 45 minutes total. Both are more work than the Pillsbury bread-in-a-can, but, unlike what Pillsbury has to offer, in neither case do I need to Google any of the ingredients to find out what they are.
I realize they're called 'convenience' foods for a reason, but it's important to ask the question, is it worth it? Ever since Americans began eating more convenient, prepackaged, highly processed foods, we've become significantly unhealthier as a population. The exact reasons and relationships elude us, but the correlation stands. There are several other things I would have liked to have accomplished yesterday afternoon, but weighed against the health and wellbeing of myself and my family, none of them were important enough for me to turn my family into a chemistry experiment.
Life is messy, it's complicated, and it's full of tough choices. One of my choices is to try to keep my food as uncomplicated as possible.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Why Don't Domestic Goddesses Get Sick Days?
I've been sick for going on three weeks now. It started as a simple cold, blossomed into bronchitis, infected the rest of the family, and is still stubbornly hanging on.
I've gone through all the prescriptions I've been given by my doctor, and am now trying to do the classic 'rest and drink plenty of fluids' thing.
But the thing is, I'm a Domestic Goddess by profession. And Domestic Goddesses don't get sick days.
We just had to hunker down for a little Frankenstorm you may have heard of called Sandy. Not knowing what to expect, my sick husband and sick me had to tag-team taking care of our sick children (who still--somehow--have disturbing levels of excess energy) and stock up on all the essentials in case we lost power for a few days. It turned out to be unnecessary as we never actually lost our power, but we couldn't have known that beforehand, so we had to scramble around.
And the kids still need help getting ready in the morning. Naomi needs a clean diaper and help getting dressed, and Spencer needs help reaching the big-boy-underwear in his top dresser drawer. Cereal doesn't put itself into bowls, nor does juice pour itself into sippies.
Peanut-butter sandwiches don't make themselves, and proud announcements of "Mom, look what I just made with my blocks!" need to be responded to. So do custody battles over those same blocks, which, apparently, aren't quite plenteous enough for two children to share.
Halloween doesn't care that I promised to make the kids' costumes back when I was feeling a lot better, so red shirts with large white circles labeled "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" needed to be sewn today.
Nobody's going to get better without a healthy diet, so the cooking had to be done. And then the dishes because, even though Mommy's sick, so is Daddy, and of the two, Mommy's actually doing a little better.
And a certain two-year-old knows she's turning three in a week, and knows that birthdays include parties, cake, and presents, and I can't bear to disappoint her with the words, "Sorry, Sweetie, Mommy doesn't feel well."
Don't get me wrong; I'm not SuperMom. I'm in my PJs right now not because I got ready for bed early but because I never bothered getting dressed this morning. My dining room floor crunches when you walk near the kids' chairs, and I expect it to continue to do so until I spit-shine the house in preparation for whatever passes for Naomi's birthday party. I called in sick to my unit of Clinical Pastoral Education last week, and I have no idea if I'll be able to make an appearance there tomorrow. Whatever is not absolutely necessary is simply not getting done right now.
But that still leaves an awful lot. The work to turn a house into a home never ends, regardless of how I feel, but that's my job. And despite the occasional minor discomforts and struggles, living in a home where everyone knows they're loved and cared-for is well worth it.
I've gone through all the prescriptions I've been given by my doctor, and am now trying to do the classic 'rest and drink plenty of fluids' thing.
But the thing is, I'm a Domestic Goddess by profession. And Domestic Goddesses don't get sick days.
We just had to hunker down for a little Frankenstorm you may have heard of called Sandy. Not knowing what to expect, my sick husband and sick me had to tag-team taking care of our sick children (who still--somehow--have disturbing levels of excess energy) and stock up on all the essentials in case we lost power for a few days. It turned out to be unnecessary as we never actually lost our power, but we couldn't have known that beforehand, so we had to scramble around.
And the kids still need help getting ready in the morning. Naomi needs a clean diaper and help getting dressed, and Spencer needs help reaching the big-boy-underwear in his top dresser drawer. Cereal doesn't put itself into bowls, nor does juice pour itself into sippies.
Peanut-butter sandwiches don't make themselves, and proud announcements of "Mom, look what I just made with my blocks!" need to be responded to. So do custody battles over those same blocks, which, apparently, aren't quite plenteous enough for two children to share.
Halloween doesn't care that I promised to make the kids' costumes back when I was feeling a lot better, so red shirts with large white circles labeled "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" needed to be sewn today.
Nobody's going to get better without a healthy diet, so the cooking had to be done. And then the dishes because, even though Mommy's sick, so is Daddy, and of the two, Mommy's actually doing a little better.
And a certain two-year-old knows she's turning three in a week, and knows that birthdays include parties, cake, and presents, and I can't bear to disappoint her with the words, "Sorry, Sweetie, Mommy doesn't feel well."
Don't get me wrong; I'm not SuperMom. I'm in my PJs right now not because I got ready for bed early but because I never bothered getting dressed this morning. My dining room floor crunches when you walk near the kids' chairs, and I expect it to continue to do so until I spit-shine the house in preparation for whatever passes for Naomi's birthday party. I called in sick to my unit of Clinical Pastoral Education last week, and I have no idea if I'll be able to make an appearance there tomorrow. Whatever is not absolutely necessary is simply not getting done right now.
But that still leaves an awful lot. The work to turn a house into a home never ends, regardless of how I feel, but that's my job. And despite the occasional minor discomforts and struggles, living in a home where everyone knows they're loved and cared-for is well worth it.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Unexpected Teaching Moment: Prejudice
The other night I watched West Side Story with my kids. I love the movie and haven't seen it in years (over a decade, at least). My kids really enjoy movies with good music, especially when there's singing and dancing involved. Especially Spencer. He's also getting tired of watching and re-watching his usual flicks. So I saw it as a win-win: Spencer got to see something new, and I got to watch something that wasn't made by Pixar.
Now, let me describe for you what it's like to watch a movie with Spencer. My son is apparently unable to process a thought silently--he verbalizes his stream of consciousness. And there's a lot to process when watching a movie (even after he's seen it three dozen times, he still processes it as though he's never seen it before). He's constantly asking, "What just happened? Why did he do that? Why are they walking? Where are they going? What's going to happen next?" And so on. I usually respond with a steady stream of, "You were watching, you saw what happened. Just wait, and you'll see. Watch and you'll find out." Until I finally resort to, "Just be quiet and watch the movie, Spencer!"
West Side Story started off with the expected questions: "Is that a playground?" Yes, Spencer, it's a playground. "Why are those boys in a playground?" Because they want to be there. "Why are they dancing?" They just are.
And then the questions began to get a little harder. "What are they doing to that other boy?" They're letting him know they don't want him there. "Why not?" Because they don't like him. "Why don't they like him?" And then, before I could come up with a four-year-old appropriate answer to that question, "Who are those boys?" They're that other boy's friends. "Are they fighting? Why are they fighting?" Because those two groups of boys are enemies. "Who are the good boys and who are the bad boys?" Uh, they're all pretty good boys. "Then why are they fighting?" Because they don't like people who are different from them. "Why not?" Because they just don't. "Because they're mean?" They're mean to the people they don't like, and they're nice to the people they do like. "But why aren't they nice to everybody if they're good boys?" Umm, some people are like that. And then, "Why don't they want that girl around?" Because girls aren't allowed. "Why not?"
And this was the first ten minutes of a two and a half hour movie.
As exasperated as I was trying to answer these questions, I loved the fact that they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that my son doesn't understand prejudice. He doesn't understand how people can decide to be mean or nice to someone based on their skin color or accent. He doesn't understand why someone's gender would make them ineligible to join a certain group. And when I tried to explain it to him, he gave me a look that clearly said, "Mom, that's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say, and that's saying something!"
And he's absolutely right. It is stupid. It's pointless. It makes no sense. And it's not a natural part of who we are. Spencer didn't understand prejudice because he's never been taught prejudice. He's never been taught to exclude others for arbitrary reasons, and he's never been excluded for arbitrary reasons himself (though I'm sure that day will come). Children don't hate others until they've been told that they should, and taught how. It may not be done intentionally, but they are very observant, and they will act the way they see the adults around them acting. Too many adults don't think about what they're teaching the children who idolize them.
I wanted to introduce my son to one of my favorite musicals. In doing so, I also began to teach him about the darker side of some human interactions. He liked the music, even when I sang along. He liked the dancing. He thought the girls were pretty (both the Caucasians and the Puerto Ricans). He didn't like that he had to hug me and pat my arm reassuringly at the end and say, "It's OK; everything's going to be all right" when I was crying hysterically because some people died for some really stupid reasons. Why couldn't they all just get along?
I think we'll watch Fiddler on the Roof next. Then I'll get to explain religious persecution to him, as well. And sing along with more of my favorite showtunes.
Now, let me describe for you what it's like to watch a movie with Spencer. My son is apparently unable to process a thought silently--he verbalizes his stream of consciousness. And there's a lot to process when watching a movie (even after he's seen it three dozen times, he still processes it as though he's never seen it before). He's constantly asking, "What just happened? Why did he do that? Why are they walking? Where are they going? What's going to happen next?" And so on. I usually respond with a steady stream of, "You were watching, you saw what happened. Just wait, and you'll see. Watch and you'll find out." Until I finally resort to, "Just be quiet and watch the movie, Spencer!"
West Side Story started off with the expected questions: "Is that a playground?" Yes, Spencer, it's a playground. "Why are those boys in a playground?" Because they want to be there. "Why are they dancing?" They just are.
And then the questions began to get a little harder. "What are they doing to that other boy?" They're letting him know they don't want him there. "Why not?" Because they don't like him. "Why don't they like him?" And then, before I could come up with a four-year-old appropriate answer to that question, "Who are those boys?" They're that other boy's friends. "Are they fighting? Why are they fighting?" Because those two groups of boys are enemies. "Who are the good boys and who are the bad boys?" Uh, they're all pretty good boys. "Then why are they fighting?" Because they don't like people who are different from them. "Why not?" Because they just don't. "Because they're mean?" They're mean to the people they don't like, and they're nice to the people they do like. "But why aren't they nice to everybody if they're good boys?" Umm, some people are like that. And then, "Why don't they want that girl around?" Because girls aren't allowed. "Why not?"
And this was the first ten minutes of a two and a half hour movie.
As exasperated as I was trying to answer these questions, I loved the fact that they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that my son doesn't understand prejudice. He doesn't understand how people can decide to be mean or nice to someone based on their skin color or accent. He doesn't understand why someone's gender would make them ineligible to join a certain group. And when I tried to explain it to him, he gave me a look that clearly said, "Mom, that's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say, and that's saying something!"
And he's absolutely right. It is stupid. It's pointless. It makes no sense. And it's not a natural part of who we are. Spencer didn't understand prejudice because he's never been taught prejudice. He's never been taught to exclude others for arbitrary reasons, and he's never been excluded for arbitrary reasons himself (though I'm sure that day will come). Children don't hate others until they've been told that they should, and taught how. It may not be done intentionally, but they are very observant, and they will act the way they see the adults around them acting. Too many adults don't think about what they're teaching the children who idolize them.
I wanted to introduce my son to one of my favorite musicals. In doing so, I also began to teach him about the darker side of some human interactions. He liked the music, even when I sang along. He liked the dancing. He thought the girls were pretty (both the Caucasians and the Puerto Ricans). He didn't like that he had to hug me and pat my arm reassuringly at the end and say, "It's OK; everything's going to be all right" when I was crying hysterically because some people died for some really stupid reasons. Why couldn't they all just get along?
I think we'll watch Fiddler on the Roof next. Then I'll get to explain religious persecution to him, as well. And sing along with more of my favorite showtunes.
Friday, September 28, 2012
10 Rules for Being Politically Obnoxious on Facebook
It’s election season again, and the attacks are in full
swing, both among the political professionals and their devoted followers on
social media. However, I’ve noticed a
few people on Facebook engaging in posts and comments that are simply
unacceptable for the current political and cultural environment. Now, I realize there is a certain freedom in
the online world that’s lacking in real life, however there are rules which must be followed if one is going to
successfully destroy all hope for intelligent debate and informed citizenry.
Rule #1: Ignorance is Power. If you don’t know all the facts, then they
can’t trouble you. You already know
everything you need to know about everything, because you read something
someone posted about it once. As long as
you can loosely paraphrase a soundbite that supports your position, you have
all the information you need. It’s a
waste of time to research actual statistics, read actual reports, or listen to
actual speeches given by the person you don’t want to vote for. As long as you avoid actual facts, no one can
contradict you.
Rule #2: Choose Your Sources Carefully. Obviously not everyone is an expert on
everything (only a few brilliant souls like myself can claim that). Therefore you must sometimes find reliable
information elsewhere. Online is best,
because if it’s on the web then it must
be true (unless it was planted there by the ignorant followers of the other
party). Be sure to seek out bloggers who
share your opinions or paid political organizations that specialize in
masquerading as grass-roots organizations.
Their newsletters can always be trusted to be completely factual and accurate.
After bloggers and hired guns, entertaining talk show hosts are good
sources. Conservatives should go to
Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for information, and liberals should get their news
from Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. If
you must rely on an actual news organization, be sure to choose one with an
obvious bias towards your opinions. Fox
News is best for conservatives, and MSNBC is best for liberals, though liberals
have more choices due to the liberal bias of the entire mainstream media. However the more outside sources you consult
(liberal or conservative), the more different interpretations you’ll be exposed
to. Pick one or two sources and stick
with them exclusively.
Rule #3: Limit the Debate. Only one issue matters: the one you care about. Dismiss any arguments against your preferred
candidate that try to change the subject, and drive home the importance of your
facts by stating your strongest opinions and then using the words, “END OF
DISCUSSION.” (All caps is very important
here—see rule #4.)
Rule #4: USE ALL CAPS WITH ABANDON. A generally accepted understanding of online
etiquette is that using all capital letters is equivalent to yelling. Since we’re trying to drown out all opposing
opinions, we want to be as loud as possible.
Use all caps to ridicule or deride an argument or the individual who
made it (it doesn’t matter which—see rule #5), or to emphasize that you won’t
be swayed from your opinion NO MATTER WHAT!!!
(Extra exclamation points also help to increase the volume of your
online rant, so feel free to use them excessively, as well.)
Rule #5: There is No Difference Between a
Person and Their Position. Since a
person is completely defined by their political beliefs, we are free to judge
people based on their political postings.
If you think someone’s opinion is stupid, then they are stupid,
too. If you think someone’s opinion is immoral,
then clearly they are immoral, as well, and you have a moral responsibility to
inform the entire online community of their depravity. Do not humanize people who think differently
than you; they’re nothing more than faulty opinions that need to be shot down
and made to go away.
Rule #6: Go Negative. Anyone with any common sense at all already
knows why the person you want to vote for is the only reasonable choice. Therefore it’s a waste of time to extol the
positive attributes of your candidate, and you should only focus on what’s
wrong/immoral/evil about the other candidate, his or her entire party, and
everyone who supports them.
Rule #7: Sweeping Generalizations are Always
Accurate and Appropriate. If one
person holds any given position, that person’s entire political party and all
other supporters must hold that same position.
You are free to assign whatever motives you wish to why they hold that
position (the more nefarious the motivation, the easier it is to ridicule it
and the person as well—see Rule #5).
Rule #8: If You’re Losing an Argument, Switch
to Another Topic and Pretend You Didn’t.
Sometimes a really annoying online adversary will somehow be able to
defend his or her (wrong) position while poking very real holes in your
(obviously right) position. When this
happens, change the focus of the debate to something you can win, and pretend
it’s the same debate. This allows you to
completely disregard the minor victory your opponent thinks they may have won,
and also has the added bonus of annoying your opponent so much that frequently they’ll
just shut up and go away. That means
you’ve won.
Rule #9: Disregard All Information From Sources
You Don’t Use Yourself. This is
related to Rule #2, but applies more specifically to any sources cited by
someone you’re debating. Any data or
information they bring up from a source that doesn’t align with your preferred
bias completely factual and unbiased source is irrelevant and can be
dismissed. Unless they can use your own
preferred sources for their information, it’s not worth discussing the matter
with them. (If they can use information from your own sources against you, then you need to
tell them how they’ve twisted and misinterpreted the data, are too stupid to
understand it, or else change the focus of the argument, as detailed in Rule
#8.)
Rule #10: There are No Human Consequences. Issues like war, hunger, poverty, health
care, mental illness, unemployment, and family values are ideologies to be
enforced, and real people aren’t affected by the consequences of these
ideologies. Therefore you should make
light of these issues and the people who claim to be harmed by your view of
them, because mockery strengthens your argument. People who disagree with you aren’t really
human anyway, and should be mocked,
insulted, and demeaned (see Rule #5).
By following these rules, you can help silence those who are seeking intelligent debate. More and more people will become
disillusioned with the political process and simply disengage, leaving the
decisions to be made by the loudest and most obnoxious extremists out there. We’re well on our way down that path already;
please do your part to accomplish this important goal.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
Anyone with a Facebook account knows that it's election season. 'Friends' are posting links supporting their favorite candidates, bashing their favorite candidate's opponents, and frequently offending some number of their 'friends' in the process.
That's all fine. It's part of the democratic process, freedom of speech, etc., and if you don't want to be offended by anyone, you should go hide in a cave somewhere (something which I'm very tempted to do more and more often lately). But there are two things that I find particularly problematic with many of the posts, links, and the inevitable attached comments.
First is the total lack of awareness that the poster's opinion isn't the only 'correct' one. People who disagree aren't automatically ignorant, un-American, bigoted, or in any other way mentally deficient. The lack of civil discourse on both sides is appalling, and is part of the reason why I want to go hide in that cave.
The other problem with many of those posts is the wrong or misleading information that's being put out there. Everyone wants to look their best, especially if they're running for President, but repeating a lie or half-truth over and over again doesn't make it true, and it's not helpful.
Again, both parties are guilty of this, but a post from a 'friend' just hit my Facebook newsfeed yesterday afternoon, and it's the one that happened to inspire me to write. It was a graphic from the Facebook page 'Being Conservative' which, according to their 'About' page is a South Carolina LLC. Their stated mission is to find "5 million fans to stand in opposition to Obama's liberal policies." (Current fan count is around 2.6 million.) Their website (www.BeingConservative.com) identifies them as a consulting firm specializing in "us[ing] [their] knowledge and media buying expertise to ... leverage our sophisticated geo-targeting engine built for our larger corporate clients to help our candidates dominate their opponents on Facebook."
So let's not confuse them with some grassroots organization of like-minded citizens earnestly trying to get a conservative candidate more to their liking into the White House; they're a professional consulting firm who is putting this stuff up on Facebook because someone is paying them a lot of money to do so.
Now, on to the graphic in question. Sadly, I can't reproduce it here without the formatting getting all messed up, so here's the pertinent information. It's a graph entitled "President Obama's Record" and shows the unemployment rate, median income, price of gas per gallon, and national debt as they were when Obama took office compared to 'Now.' At the bottom it indicates that the sources were BLS, Sentier Research, Dept. of Energy, and Dept. of Treasury. Here's how those numbers compare:
UNEMPLOYMENT
Jan 2009: 7.8%
Now: 8.3%
MEDIAN INCOME
Jan 2009: $54,983
Now: $50,964
GASOLINE / GALLON
Jan 2009: $1.84
Now: $3.82
NATIONAL DEBT
Jan 2009: $10.6T
Now: $16T
First off, let me state my appreciation for the fact that Being Conservative reported accurate numbers provided by reputable sources. Too often people will just pull numbers out of the air (we've all heard the one about 98.9% of all statistics being made up on the spot), or they'll see it on some blog somewhere and, since it's online it must be true. So the numbers as presented by Being Conservative are true and accurate. Kudos.
But the kudos stop there, because those numbers are also highly misleading. How are they misleading? I'm glad you asked. They're misleading because the whole premise of Being Conservative is that a conservative-leaning President would have better numbers, and that it's Obama's liberal policies that resulted in these admittedly disappointing figures.
Let's compare with George W. Bush's years in the White House to see if that holds true, shall we? I'm pretty sure he counts as a conservative.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Jan 2001: 4.2%
Jan 2009: 7.8%
Right out of the gate we have a problem. The liberal President had a .5% increase in unemployment during his time in office, while the conservative President had a 3.5% increase during his tenure. Don't like that we're comparing Obama's four years with Bush's eight? OK, we'll assume the unemployment rate would continue on its current trajectory and double the increase to 1% to account for a second term. That's still less than 1/3 the increase under the last conservative's policies.
MEDIAN INCOME
Jan 2001: $40,148
Jan 2009: $47,361
My number for 2009 came from the US Census Bureau, a source not used by Being Conservative. If the Census Bureau is correct, then median income actually increased during Obama's time in office. But there's another consideration to be made here, and that's inflation. The experience of myself and many others I've spoken with is that wages are going down while costs are going up. This has been happening during the last four years, but it started long before Obama landed in the White House. Here are the same numbers adjusted for inflation (same source as above):
Jan 2001: $52,005
Jan 2009: $50,599
It doesn't look very good for our current liberal President, but it wasn't much better with our previous conservative President, either.
GASOLINE / GALLON
Jan 2001: $1.51
Jan 2009: $1.84
Again, things are not always as they seem. Gas prices are anything but stable, and snapshots of a given day do not give an accurate picture. For example, have we already forgotten the energy crisis of 2008 that had gas averaging over $4 per gallon and that inspired 'Drill, baby, drill" to become a popular conservative slogan? Let's look at gas prices averaged over each year.
2001: $1.46
2002: $1.38
2003: $1.60
2004: $1.90
2005: $2.31
2006: $2.61
2007: $2.84
2008: $3.30
And then Obama:
2009: $2.41
2010: $2.84
2011: $3.58
Again, the liberal policies aren't great, but the conservative record isn't any better.
And now for the National Debt. I think we all know how this one's going to look, but let's go there anyway.
NATIONAL DEBT
Jan 2001: $5.7T
Jan 2009: $10T
Yup, conservative fiscal policies nearly doubled the national debt. And turning around the debt is like turning the Titanic; the momentum carries you forward no matter how hard you try to turn the wheel. But didn't Bush have to contend with momentum in the debt, too? Let's look at his (liberal) predecessor's record.
Jan 1993: $4.2T
Jan 2001: $5.7T
There was a little momentum there, but not nearly enough to account for the increased spending we saw under our last conservative President.
I'm not trying to claim that Obama's a great President. Personally, I don't think he is. But Being Conservative is trying to claim that Obama's liberal policies are sending the country in the wrong direction, and implying that a conservative candidate would do better. When I look at the full story behind their numbers, I don't see a convincing argument. Could a conservative do a better job? Quite possibly. But simply being a conservative isn't enough. I already know why I shouldn't vote for this particular liberal. Why should I vote conservative?
That's all fine. It's part of the democratic process, freedom of speech, etc., and if you don't want to be offended by anyone, you should go hide in a cave somewhere (something which I'm very tempted to do more and more often lately). But there are two things that I find particularly problematic with many of the posts, links, and the inevitable attached comments.
First is the total lack of awareness that the poster's opinion isn't the only 'correct' one. People who disagree aren't automatically ignorant, un-American, bigoted, or in any other way mentally deficient. The lack of civil discourse on both sides is appalling, and is part of the reason why I want to go hide in that cave.
The other problem with many of those posts is the wrong or misleading information that's being put out there. Everyone wants to look their best, especially if they're running for President, but repeating a lie or half-truth over and over again doesn't make it true, and it's not helpful.
Again, both parties are guilty of this, but a post from a 'friend' just hit my Facebook newsfeed yesterday afternoon, and it's the one that happened to inspire me to write. It was a graphic from the Facebook page 'Being Conservative' which, according to their 'About' page is a South Carolina LLC. Their stated mission is to find "5 million fans to stand in opposition to Obama's liberal policies." (Current fan count is around 2.6 million.) Their website (www.BeingConservative.com) identifies them as a consulting firm specializing in "us[ing] [their] knowledge and media buying expertise to ... leverage our sophisticated geo-targeting engine built for our larger corporate clients to help our candidates dominate their opponents on Facebook."
So let's not confuse them with some grassroots organization of like-minded citizens earnestly trying to get a conservative candidate more to their liking into the White House; they're a professional consulting firm who is putting this stuff up on Facebook because someone is paying them a lot of money to do so.
Now, on to the graphic in question. Sadly, I can't reproduce it here without the formatting getting all messed up, so here's the pertinent information. It's a graph entitled "President Obama's Record" and shows the unemployment rate, median income, price of gas per gallon, and national debt as they were when Obama took office compared to 'Now.' At the bottom it indicates that the sources were BLS, Sentier Research, Dept. of Energy, and Dept. of Treasury. Here's how those numbers compare:
UNEMPLOYMENT
Jan 2009: 7.8%
Now: 8.3%
MEDIAN INCOME
Jan 2009: $54,983
Now: $50,964
GASOLINE / GALLON
Jan 2009: $1.84
Now: $3.82
NATIONAL DEBT
Jan 2009: $10.6T
Now: $16T
First off, let me state my appreciation for the fact that Being Conservative reported accurate numbers provided by reputable sources. Too often people will just pull numbers out of the air (we've all heard the one about 98.9% of all statistics being made up on the spot), or they'll see it on some blog somewhere and, since it's online it must be true. So the numbers as presented by Being Conservative are true and accurate. Kudos.
But the kudos stop there, because those numbers are also highly misleading. How are they misleading? I'm glad you asked. They're misleading because the whole premise of Being Conservative is that a conservative-leaning President would have better numbers, and that it's Obama's liberal policies that resulted in these admittedly disappointing figures.
Let's compare with George W. Bush's years in the White House to see if that holds true, shall we? I'm pretty sure he counts as a conservative.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Jan 2001: 4.2%
Jan 2009: 7.8%
Right out of the gate we have a problem. The liberal President had a .5% increase in unemployment during his time in office, while the conservative President had a 3.5% increase during his tenure. Don't like that we're comparing Obama's four years with Bush's eight? OK, we'll assume the unemployment rate would continue on its current trajectory and double the increase to 1% to account for a second term. That's still less than 1/3 the increase under the last conservative's policies.
MEDIAN INCOME
Jan 2001: $40,148
Jan 2009: $47,361
My number for 2009 came from the US Census Bureau, a source not used by Being Conservative. If the Census Bureau is correct, then median income actually increased during Obama's time in office. But there's another consideration to be made here, and that's inflation. The experience of myself and many others I've spoken with is that wages are going down while costs are going up. This has been happening during the last four years, but it started long before Obama landed in the White House. Here are the same numbers adjusted for inflation (same source as above):
Jan 2001: $52,005
Jan 2009: $50,599
It doesn't look very good for our current liberal President, but it wasn't much better with our previous conservative President, either.
GASOLINE / GALLON
Jan 2001: $1.51
Jan 2009: $1.84
Again, things are not always as they seem. Gas prices are anything but stable, and snapshots of a given day do not give an accurate picture. For example, have we already forgotten the energy crisis of 2008 that had gas averaging over $4 per gallon and that inspired 'Drill, baby, drill" to become a popular conservative slogan? Let's look at gas prices averaged over each year.
2001: $1.46
2002: $1.38
2003: $1.60
2004: $1.90
2005: $2.31
2006: $2.61
2007: $2.84
2008: $3.30
And then Obama:
2009: $2.41
2010: $2.84
2011: $3.58
Again, the liberal policies aren't great, but the conservative record isn't any better.
And now for the National Debt. I think we all know how this one's going to look, but let's go there anyway.
NATIONAL DEBT
Jan 2001: $5.7T
Jan 2009: $10T
Yup, conservative fiscal policies nearly doubled the national debt. And turning around the debt is like turning the Titanic; the momentum carries you forward no matter how hard you try to turn the wheel. But didn't Bush have to contend with momentum in the debt, too? Let's look at his (liberal) predecessor's record.
Jan 1993: $4.2T
Jan 2001: $5.7T
There was a little momentum there, but not nearly enough to account for the increased spending we saw under our last conservative President.
I'm not trying to claim that Obama's a great President. Personally, I don't think he is. But Being Conservative is trying to claim that Obama's liberal policies are sending the country in the wrong direction, and implying that a conservative candidate would do better. When I look at the full story behind their numbers, I don't see a convincing argument. Could a conservative do a better job? Quite possibly. But simply being a conservative isn't enough. I already know why I shouldn't vote for this particular liberal. Why should I vote conservative?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)