Ok, so this will probably not be a politically correct blog entry, but I can't help myself. The US has bowed out of the World Cup after finishing first in their group with 5 accumulated points. I tried to be interested, and to be supportive of the endeavor on a private, personal level. After all, I am a loyalist. I root for all the local sports teams - a 4 for 4 guy - in cheering on the Phillies, Eagles, Flyers, and Sixers. I cheer on the local high school teams, and I go to local college games as time and opportunity permits.
I watched a decent amount of the England-US game. I saw almost all of the US-Algeria game. I glanced briefly at the US-Ghana game today. I didn't care. I wanted to care, but I just didn't. Perhaps I have been spoiled by the games (sports) with which I have had the most involvement: baseball, basketball, football, and lacrosse. Even hockey might qualify, especially playoff hockey. You see, in those sports with which I am most familiar, one basic truth prevails: if the offensive player does what he is supposed to do with a high degree of technical and situational skill, his team will be rewarded with a reasonable chance to score a goal, touchdown, or run.
Now, look at soccer. These guys are admittedly some of the most remarkable athletes in the world. They can run, jump, stop on a dime, control a ball with only their feet, and generally make torturously difficult athletic movements look ridiculously easy. However, if the offensive player in soccer does everything he is supposed to do with high degree of techinical and situational skill, his team will have a reasonable chance to score a goal approximately one out of every thirty times. Moreso than baseball, and almost every other sport except for field hockey, failure is the norm.
90 or more minutes every game, and the most common score is 1-0. My conclusion is that the game is just too hard. I don't need high scoring, a 1-0 baseball game or a 1-0 hockey game can be riveting, as can relatively low-scoring basketball and football games. The problem isn't the final tally, but the futility of the efforts on a regular basis.
I think they need to change the rules. Maybe if they played with fewer players per side, or if they changed the off-sides rule to allow those sneaky guys to hide behind the defense. I honestly don't know the game well enough to suggest a legitimate rule change. What I know is that the games I watched weren't compelling. I respect the athletes, and am often awed by their conditioning and skill. What I would like to see is the fruit of the definition mentioned earlier. If a soccer teams executes its play, sequence, or set EXACTLY as they have prepared and practiced, they should be rewarded with a chance to score. Perhaps a defender will streak in to redirect a shot. Perhaps the goalie will make a phenomenal save. Perhaps the offensive player will kick the ball just barely wide. I don't need a higher level of success in scoring, just a higher chane for success.
I wish the US had advanced. I would have no problem with soccer's popularity growing to rival the rest of the world's. I believe that will never happen, however, so long as chances are so few and far between, and so long a games are won and lost so often on the whim of a referee's call that no one can explain, and which the referee himself isn't required to explain. So long as games are won and lost on the capricious bad or good bounce - depending on which team one is cheering - the games will not hold my interest.
I apologize to all of the fans out there who will hate my position. I admit in advance that I don't understand, and I am not inclined to try to learn. I think the sport needs to change. Put 7 men on a side. Do away with off-sides. Do something to elevate the sport beyond what it is now, a great deal of work while waiting for one team or the other to get a stroke of luck.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
The 8th Habit - Hmmm...
So I picked up Stephen Covey's book, The 8th Habit, and started to have a look at it. I vaguely remember reading the 7 habits book from many years ago, but I was less impressed than everyone else on the planet.
While I agree with Covey's points, I suppose my lack of excitement was housed in the fact that I thought the advice was less than earth-shattering. You see, aren't most of his ideas grounded in the same optimism that Thoreau and Emerson espoused with their Transcendental philosophy of the middle 1800's?
The 8th Habit therefore is even less earth-shattering, though again I must express a general agreement with the principles. If I read Thoreau and Emerson correctly, they seems to agree that each human has to think for himself, trust that he and other people have the potential for greatness if they connect with the universal in themselves and in the world in general, and believe that the self-reliant individual will act in a way that will benefit himself and those around him.
Now go look at the Covey book and tell me that his philosophy isn't essentially transplanted from the woods of Walden to the top offices of the corporate centers of the world.
So why respond?
Could it be that no matter how complicated the world becomes, the more basic is the philosophy that can help people to wend their way through it?
A summary then... Be yourself. No matter the external forces and circumstances, marshall your efforts so that you are making yourself as viable and efficacious as you possibly can. When decorum or propriety tell you to tread softly, listen. But do not stop following the principles and drives that tell you what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong DO NOT CHANGE with the times. They are intractable, constant, and timeless.
It didn't take a book.
While I agree with Covey's points, I suppose my lack of excitement was housed in the fact that I thought the advice was less than earth-shattering. You see, aren't most of his ideas grounded in the same optimism that Thoreau and Emerson espoused with their Transcendental philosophy of the middle 1800's?
The 8th Habit therefore is even less earth-shattering, though again I must express a general agreement with the principles. If I read Thoreau and Emerson correctly, they seems to agree that each human has to think for himself, trust that he and other people have the potential for greatness if they connect with the universal in themselves and in the world in general, and believe that the self-reliant individual will act in a way that will benefit himself and those around him.
Now go look at the Covey book and tell me that his philosophy isn't essentially transplanted from the woods of Walden to the top offices of the corporate centers of the world.
So why respond?
Could it be that no matter how complicated the world becomes, the more basic is the philosophy that can help people to wend their way through it?
A summary then... Be yourself. No matter the external forces and circumstances, marshall your efforts so that you are making yourself as viable and efficacious as you possibly can. When decorum or propriety tell you to tread softly, listen. But do not stop following the principles and drives that tell you what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong DO NOT CHANGE with the times. They are intractable, constant, and timeless.
It didn't take a book.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Do we Really Think? An Impertinent but Necessary Question to Ask Ourselves
The title and text of the following entry is entirely borrowed from a book af essays and observations. I will give proper credit at the end, so that the reader has a chance to respond as intended/expected.
"We Americans are firm believers in education. The litle red schoolhouse is the very backbone of our entire experiment in government and living. Education is widely encouraged and made available to almost everyone."
"It would shock most of us, then, to hear that our education is sadly in need of repair. That despite our buildings and books and teachers and endowments we have overlooked the most important result which any education should give."
"The truth is that, as a nation, we have not been educated to think. We are filled with dates and names and even a wide variety of knowledge, but the ability to think --- to think through to the very end of a problem --- is stil a very rare quality with us."
"Millions of men come to problems which they earnestly seek to solve. On paper the solution they bring seems to be the right one. Weeks later, Time has proved it the wrong one. Isn't that the real reason why so many men who are sincere, ambitious, and hard working still meet with so little success?"
"As a nation, we enjoy a fine percentage of literacy. We read, write, spell, count, and talk reasonably well. Yet the ability to think, to rationalize --- to reason coldly and logically, is something apart from all this. And to men in business, this remains and shall always remain the greatest of assets."
"It is time to inquire into this. It is time to realize that in this machine age, average knowledge, average ability to do anything, is worth only half of what it was fifty years ago. We are building machines today which add better than men can and faster too. It is only a matter of time before machines will spell and provide information and carry out tasks of all kinds. In short, the mechanical man we are perfecting threatens to do almost everything we do - except one, and that is to think."
"Thinking on the surface---or halfway--- or three quarters of the way --- is like making half or three fourths of an automobile. And thinking this distance is just as useless.
"It is time to ask: are we really thinking things through?"
Heatter, Gabriel. Faith: a selection from essays and editorial that appeared in "The Shaft." United States of America, 1936.
Seventy-five years ago, at least one voice was forewarning, and forecasting, the perils that plague us in 2006. How prescient for a pre-WWII radio man to see that we were headed for an eduational disconnect that has not gotten better in the end?
Too many of us aren't thinking, about anything, all the way through to the end.
Admit it, if the 'red schoolhouse' and the dated computer references hadn't given it away, you would have thought this was written today.
How else to explain the current predicaments we are in? Pick a current issue - the Gulf Oil leak, the various war zones, the global economy, the jobless rate, the bailouts. You cannot tell me that the perpetrators would have taken us to where we are now had they thought there various situations through to the very end.
"We Americans are firm believers in education. The litle red schoolhouse is the very backbone of our entire experiment in government and living. Education is widely encouraged and made available to almost everyone."
"It would shock most of us, then, to hear that our education is sadly in need of repair. That despite our buildings and books and teachers and endowments we have overlooked the most important result which any education should give."
"The truth is that, as a nation, we have not been educated to think. We are filled with dates and names and even a wide variety of knowledge, but the ability to think --- to think through to the very end of a problem --- is stil a very rare quality with us."
"Millions of men come to problems which they earnestly seek to solve. On paper the solution they bring seems to be the right one. Weeks later, Time has proved it the wrong one. Isn't that the real reason why so many men who are sincere, ambitious, and hard working still meet with so little success?"
"As a nation, we enjoy a fine percentage of literacy. We read, write, spell, count, and talk reasonably well. Yet the ability to think, to rationalize --- to reason coldly and logically, is something apart from all this. And to men in business, this remains and shall always remain the greatest of assets."
"It is time to inquire into this. It is time to realize that in this machine age, average knowledge, average ability to do anything, is worth only half of what it was fifty years ago. We are building machines today which add better than men can and faster too. It is only a matter of time before machines will spell and provide information and carry out tasks of all kinds. In short, the mechanical man we are perfecting threatens to do almost everything we do - except one, and that is to think."
"Thinking on the surface---or halfway--- or three quarters of the way --- is like making half or three fourths of an automobile. And thinking this distance is just as useless.
"It is time to ask: are we really thinking things through?"
Heatter, Gabriel. Faith: a selection from essays and editorial that appeared in "The Shaft." United States of America, 1936.
Seventy-five years ago, at least one voice was forewarning, and forecasting, the perils that plague us in 2006. How prescient for a pre-WWII radio man to see that we were headed for an eduational disconnect that has not gotten better in the end?
Too many of us aren't thinking, about anything, all the way through to the end.
Admit it, if the 'red schoolhouse' and the dated computer references hadn't given it away, you would have thought this was written today.
How else to explain the current predicaments we are in? Pick a current issue - the Gulf Oil leak, the various war zones, the global economy, the jobless rate, the bailouts. You cannot tell me that the perpetrators would have taken us to where we are now had they thought there various situations through to the very end.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
State of the Union
State of the Union (ca.1994)
We are too like Ulysses, in decline.
We are become a name – or even less –
A shadow of a name, a misty scent
Of glory days too often perfumed over.
The paunch of our complacency sits well
As we preside over a savage race,
Exacting self-inflicted fines for crimes
Committed more as an accessory
Than as a perpetrator. Yet are we
Betrayers guilty, chasing silver dreams –
Mistrusting eyes which once saw past the sky.
In our bright youth we led like pioneers
Into a new frontier, each mountain pass
Divulging treasures. Onward to a sea
As vast and boundless as our spirit – strong
Enough to tame the wilderness of fear.
Then when we should have sailed upon the tide,
To have momentous current serve our will,
We heeded servile voices, counsel stern:
“Leave off this long, intrepid odyssey.
Take root and flower here beside the sea.”
Relenting, we grew cautious, lost desire,
Denied the motives burning deep inside;
Bequeathed by proud Prometheus, this fire
Provided grit for noble enterprise –
To strive with gods was once within our grasp.
Except… we acquiesced. The compromise
Accepted soon but never justified.
Now we grow fat, luxurious – our eyes
Glassed over turning inward.
We must try
To find a quest as worthy as the first
Of all the exploits listed by our names.
Then hereby make a promise and a pact
Between us and our honor: Once we flew
By instinct pure and simple, so we swear
Upon the moral fiber of our past
We will stay true to principle, in spite
Of obstacles and hardship. We must fight
To lead all those we touch – in quiet ways
And with bombast alike if it need be-
By nurture and example show the world
That we have not completely lost our will.
Rage out against all thunderclaps, despite
Our ineffective blows. No! No! because
Our impotence encumbers and confines.
Not by decree can any living soul
Embark upon a tempest-tortured sea,
Without regard for imminent dismay
Or setback. Yet surrender must not breathe
Within our hearts, when storms will fracture skies
With lightning. What is lightning? But a sign
From all and any gods, what so they be.
A sign that power lives and breathes, as we
Forever may, unless we choose to sleep.
I speak for you, “I choose to seek the dream.”
Obviously, this was originally composed in 1994, two years after the Bill Clinton regime began what appears to have been the final phase of the dissolution of the American heart and spirit. Yes, the process began as early as 1950, with the Korean Conflict, and continued with the embarrassment that was Vietnam. Reagan tried to reverse the course through the 80’s, but even his successor, Bush I, quickly blinked and reverted to the heartless approach that gathered support through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. I trace the acceptance of our lack of heart to Clinton, who made the stance popular.
We are too like Ulysses, in decline.
We are become a name – or even less –
A shadow of a name, a misty scent
Of glory days too often perfumed over.
The paunch of our complacency sits well
As we preside over a savage race,
Exacting self-inflicted fines for crimes
Committed more as an accessory
Than as a perpetrator. Yet are we
Betrayers guilty, chasing silver dreams –
Mistrusting eyes which once saw past the sky.
In our bright youth we led like pioneers
Into a new frontier, each mountain pass
Divulging treasures. Onward to a sea
As vast and boundless as our spirit – strong
Enough to tame the wilderness of fear.
Then when we should have sailed upon the tide,
To have momentous current serve our will,
We heeded servile voices, counsel stern:
“Leave off this long, intrepid odyssey.
Take root and flower here beside the sea.”
Relenting, we grew cautious, lost desire,
Denied the motives burning deep inside;
Bequeathed by proud Prometheus, this fire
Provided grit for noble enterprise –
To strive with gods was once within our grasp.
Except… we acquiesced. The compromise
Accepted soon but never justified.
Now we grow fat, luxurious – our eyes
Glassed over turning inward.
We must try
To find a quest as worthy as the first
Of all the exploits listed by our names.
Then hereby make a promise and a pact
Between us and our honor: Once we flew
By instinct pure and simple, so we swear
Upon the moral fiber of our past
We will stay true to principle, in spite
Of obstacles and hardship. We must fight
To lead all those we touch – in quiet ways
And with bombast alike if it need be-
By nurture and example show the world
That we have not completely lost our will.
Rage out against all thunderclaps, despite
Our ineffective blows. No! No! because
Our impotence encumbers and confines.
Not by decree can any living soul
Embark upon a tempest-tortured sea,
Without regard for imminent dismay
Or setback. Yet surrender must not breathe
Within our hearts, when storms will fracture skies
With lightning. What is lightning? But a sign
From all and any gods, what so they be.
A sign that power lives and breathes, as we
Forever may, unless we choose to sleep.
I speak for you, “I choose to seek the dream.”
Obviously, this was originally composed in 1994, two years after the Bill Clinton regime began what appears to have been the final phase of the dissolution of the American heart and spirit. Yes, the process began as early as 1950, with the Korean Conflict, and continued with the embarrassment that was Vietnam. Reagan tried to reverse the course through the 80’s, but even his successor, Bush I, quickly blinked and reverted to the heartless approach that gathered support through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. I trace the acceptance of our lack of heart to Clinton, who made the stance popular.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Is Everybody Really So Enamored of Tiger?
My son texted me to let me know that ESPN had added a text box to its screen, thereby making a busy screen even busier. The contents of the box on permanent display allowed viewers to follow Tigers progress at the Masters. Even though the means of communication was a text message, I could smell the disgust eminating from each keystroke.
Really, a text box on the screen at all times to mark the fortunes of a disgraced golfer who hasn't played in almost five months? Are my son and I the only ones who don't get it?
I have written in an earlier blog or two that I must acknowledge that Tiger is the best golfer in the world. The revelation that he is a hypocritical, low-life punk hasn't changed that. However, I have changed my perspective since the scandal broke. Before, I never vocally rooted for or against Tiger. I would root for a player I liked if he was contending with Tiger. I held no animosity.
Privately though - meaning in conversation with my wife, who is a major Tiger fan - I had the sense that Tiger was not what he seemed. I told her on more than one occasion, "I just think he's not a good person. The charity work, the education foundation, the family values platform: they all seemed contrived to me.
An earlier column alluded to my misgivings, but this entry is really more about the public, the fans, the media. Developments have confirmed that Tiger is indeed less than what he seemed or protrayed, and the media assumption seems to be that Tiger, warts and all, is bigger than the game.
I realized that this 'bigger than the game' theme has been what rankles me. But now, even after a public scolding from the Director at Augusta, and after a disingenuous apology from Tiger himself, the implications of which are that Tiger is NOT bigger than the game, ESPN puts a text box on its screen to declare that the Masters tournament is really all about Tiger. He is, they are saying, bigger than the game.
He shouldn't be. Each week, each year, each decade - individual players or teams get the chance to bask in a few moments of glory. Some players and teams do so more often than others, and thereby elevate themselves to the pantheon of all-time greats. As a golfer, Tiger will undoubtedly always be in that club, even if he never wins another tournament. He should never be bigger than the game. Older champions earned their accolades in the milieu that prevailed during their respective careers. When too much time separates two all time greats, comparisons are frivolous. Considering the car accident that almost killed him, should Ben Hogan be considered the greatest golfer of his era? the half century when he played? All time? Is it Nicklaus, since he won the most majors? Is Sam Snead's victory total more impressive? You see, the answer is very tough. Where does Arnie fall? How about Watson?
Fans are fickle and generally dumb about many things. I suppose my wife can still root for Tiger if she wants, though I don't understand it. However, I think the media should know better, and stop fawning over every move that Tiger makes. And I think ESPN should take down that damned text box. It's Sunday, and Tiger is playing like crap. Put up a Lee Westwood text box. A Phil Mickelson, or a Freddie Couples. No one should be bigger than the game.
Really, a text box on the screen at all times to mark the fortunes of a disgraced golfer who hasn't played in almost five months? Are my son and I the only ones who don't get it?
I have written in an earlier blog or two that I must acknowledge that Tiger is the best golfer in the world. The revelation that he is a hypocritical, low-life punk hasn't changed that. However, I have changed my perspective since the scandal broke. Before, I never vocally rooted for or against Tiger. I would root for a player I liked if he was contending with Tiger. I held no animosity.
Privately though - meaning in conversation with my wife, who is a major Tiger fan - I had the sense that Tiger was not what he seemed. I told her on more than one occasion, "I just think he's not a good person. The charity work, the education foundation, the family values platform: they all seemed contrived to me.
An earlier column alluded to my misgivings, but this entry is really more about the public, the fans, the media. Developments have confirmed that Tiger is indeed less than what he seemed or protrayed, and the media assumption seems to be that Tiger, warts and all, is bigger than the game.
I realized that this 'bigger than the game' theme has been what rankles me. But now, even after a public scolding from the Director at Augusta, and after a disingenuous apology from Tiger himself, the implications of which are that Tiger is NOT bigger than the game, ESPN puts a text box on its screen to declare that the Masters tournament is really all about Tiger. He is, they are saying, bigger than the game.
He shouldn't be. Each week, each year, each decade - individual players or teams get the chance to bask in a few moments of glory. Some players and teams do so more often than others, and thereby elevate themselves to the pantheon of all-time greats. As a golfer, Tiger will undoubtedly always be in that club, even if he never wins another tournament. He should never be bigger than the game. Older champions earned their accolades in the milieu that prevailed during their respective careers. When too much time separates two all time greats, comparisons are frivolous. Considering the car accident that almost killed him, should Ben Hogan be considered the greatest golfer of his era? the half century when he played? All time? Is it Nicklaus, since he won the most majors? Is Sam Snead's victory total more impressive? You see, the answer is very tough. Where does Arnie fall? How about Watson?
Fans are fickle and generally dumb about many things. I suppose my wife can still root for Tiger if she wants, though I don't understand it. However, I think the media should know better, and stop fawning over every move that Tiger makes. And I think ESPN should take down that damned text box. It's Sunday, and Tiger is playing like crap. Put up a Lee Westwood text box. A Phil Mickelson, or a Freddie Couples. No one should be bigger than the game.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Parenting Faux Pas
I am aware that an earlier monologue was called "Parenting," but it was written a number of years ago, and with an eye toward parenting toddlers to early teens. Furthermore, I am not sure that I have added it to this collection yet. So I have full reign to say what I want about raising children.
First of all, and least important, I think my kids are and have been great. They have tested my patience, my capacity for tolerance, and my every bias and prejudice since they passed the earliest years of adolescence.
Often through these diatribes, I have tended to focus, or at least reference, the propensity for stupidity that prevails among humans. Consequently, I intend to at least touch on my and my wife's least intelligence moments or decisions.
For instance, I decided when my oldest son hit teenager-hood that I would allow him to delay his entry into the ranks of the formally employed. The deal was that he could avoid a regular job so long as he was invested in his sport - lacrosse - and his academics. Now I need to clarify that he often went to work. For instance, he served as a waiter at a catering establishment that my brother owned, commencing after his sixteenth birthday. However, he worked only sporadically, and his bills were my bills.
Why, you might ask, did I make such a decision? Well, I expected him to hit the weight room three times per week, during the school year and in the summer. I also expected his participation in summer, winter, and fall league and tournament play. I didn't know if he would be good enough to play the game in college, but he had expressed an interest in that direction, and I wanted to support the quest.
(As it turned out, he was good enough to play at the next level, but to sustain the quest after the high school opportunities expired, he would have had to reconcile himself to being a specialist, a face off guy who wouldn't be on the field throughout the action, unless he was able to make a great deal of improvement during his college career.)
The foolshness of this decision had nothing to do with the pursuit of a sports career
or anything. The stupidity was this: the work ethic that he needed to develop, the one that would have enabled him to pursue a goal of collegiate athletics, was the very one I was squelching by giving him an out. I personally played two high school sports, trained for each of them, and held down various part time jobs from thirteen years old on. While it’s true that I wasn’t on a program, and that the sports I played were not as demanding thirty years ago.
Why would I have not sent the message that the boy should find a way to work his ass off to do all of the things he wanted? True, maybe I was deluding myself that I might have been a better college athlete had I been able to devote more time to the craft. But really, I know that my limitations weren’t caused by a lack of opportunity to train and play. I simply wasn’t that good. I had/have no resentment toward my parents in that I had to follow a frenetic pace and schedule. I don’t bemoan the fact that I had to pay my own way through school. I resent my parents for a set of reasons that have nothing to do with these subjects. My point is that of course I knew better. Why didn’t I simply send the message that I had personally learned and benefitted from? Stupidity.
Oh, and by the way. Even with my bonehead decision, my kids found plenty of opportunities to develop a work ethic. The circumnavigated my errors. Isn't it great that sometimes these mistakes don't quite come back to haunt?
First of all, and least important, I think my kids are and have been great. They have tested my patience, my capacity for tolerance, and my every bias and prejudice since they passed the earliest years of adolescence.
Often through these diatribes, I have tended to focus, or at least reference, the propensity for stupidity that prevails among humans. Consequently, I intend to at least touch on my and my wife's least intelligence moments or decisions.
For instance, I decided when my oldest son hit teenager-hood that I would allow him to delay his entry into the ranks of the formally employed. The deal was that he could avoid a regular job so long as he was invested in his sport - lacrosse - and his academics. Now I need to clarify that he often went to work. For instance, he served as a waiter at a catering establishment that my brother owned, commencing after his sixteenth birthday. However, he worked only sporadically, and his bills were my bills.
Why, you might ask, did I make such a decision? Well, I expected him to hit the weight room three times per week, during the school year and in the summer. I also expected his participation in summer, winter, and fall league and tournament play. I didn't know if he would be good enough to play the game in college, but he had expressed an interest in that direction, and I wanted to support the quest.
(As it turned out, he was good enough to play at the next level, but to sustain the quest after the high school opportunities expired, he would have had to reconcile himself to being a specialist, a face off guy who wouldn't be on the field throughout the action, unless he was able to make a great deal of improvement during his college career.)
The foolshness of this decision had nothing to do with the pursuit of a sports career
or anything. The stupidity was this: the work ethic that he needed to develop, the one that would have enabled him to pursue a goal of collegiate athletics, was the very one I was squelching by giving him an out. I personally played two high school sports, trained for each of them, and held down various part time jobs from thirteen years old on. While it’s true that I wasn’t on a program, and that the sports I played were not as demanding thirty years ago.
Why would I have not sent the message that the boy should find a way to work his ass off to do all of the things he wanted? True, maybe I was deluding myself that I might have been a better college athlete had I been able to devote more time to the craft. But really, I know that my limitations weren’t caused by a lack of opportunity to train and play. I simply wasn’t that good. I had/have no resentment toward my parents in that I had to follow a frenetic pace and schedule. I don’t bemoan the fact that I had to pay my own way through school. I resent my parents for a set of reasons that have nothing to do with these subjects. My point is that of course I knew better. Why didn’t I simply send the message that I had personally learned and benefitted from? Stupidity.
Oh, and by the way. Even with my bonehead decision, my kids found plenty of opportunities to develop a work ethic. The circumnavigated my errors. Isn't it great that sometimes these mistakes don't quite come back to haunt?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Let's Pass Laws That Excuse Parents From Parenting - Not!
I read the local paper today, and learned about pending legislation that will limit the number of passengers that a young driver may carry in his/her vehicle. I also read in the same paper a comment from a parent bemoaning the public displays of affection witnessed in front of a local high school at dismissal time.
I am sick of the trend this country is taking. Everybody wants somebody else to be in charge of parenting our children. Of course, younger drivers should limit the number of passengers they carry. Of course, every driver should wear his set belt. Of course, school children should not turn displays of affection, which ought to be private no matter the age of the participants, into public enterprises.
If a law is passed that limits the number of passengers, or if the school does a better job of pollicing the kissers, will enything have really changed? The missing ingredient isn't the clarity or completeness of the legal code, or even the level of supervision at the school. The missing engredient is the set of values that curbs the questionable behaviors.
Parents need to acquaint their children who are younger drivers with the set of values that say a car is a potentially lethal weapon, and that every trip in a motor vehicle may end in tragedy. Also, parents need to convince their kids that showing affection toward their boyfrineds or girlfriends - in public venues - is simply in bad taste. If the children don't appreciate the value, the parents can demonstrate their point by having a gropefest right there in front of the children. Middle school and high school students will invariably find their parents' behavior disgusting, and after they vomit, the point will have been made.
My wife shared with me a conversation she had recently with a parent whose school had just adopted a uniform policy. The parent was ecstatic about the adoption of the policy, but not because the effect might be a better school environment, a cost-effective way to outfit the children, or an improvement in the relative appearance of the student body. No, this parent and others were ecstatic because they no longer had to fight with their children about their clothes choices. They were happy that a school dress code had precluded them from having to educate and influence their children.
The impetus for the Pennsylvania House Bill regarding passneger limitations is the same. Legislators crafted the bill because their constituant parents will support it. The parents will support it because they will need to have one fewer argument with their children. Many parents and studnets will refrain form carrying large numbers of passengers the minute the law is passed. That will be a positive side effect of POOR LEGISLATION.
Why poor legislation, you may ask. The answer should be obvious. The passage of the law will not eliminate the instances where young drivers carry too many passengers. You know, sometimes young drivers will BREAK the LAW! Sometimes, these young drivers fall prey to the distractions that plague young drivers, and they will sometimes have accidents. The negative side effect is that parents will be having one fewer conversation with their children about the way they should conduct themselves as they make their way through life.
Again, the complainant regarding the PDA episodes is motivated by the same faulty reasoning. If the school supervises and reduces the visible incidents, will the behavior really be changed? No, the adoption of a set of values that promotes self-discipline, and which encourages youngsters to be aware of the propriety of their behavior, will promote a resuction of the behavior.
In both cases, the most effective method for promotion of the positive behavior is the parent and all adults with whom the student comes into contact.
We will never be successful in legislating human behavior. Every adult must be responsible, to obviously different degrees, for the behavior of all younger people. The lady in the car who witnessed the PDA should have voiced her displeasure to the offenders. No, she shouldn't have confronted these people she didn't know, but she shouldn't have done nothing except go home and find a way to blame someone else.
My own three children have made it to young adulthood. Along the way, they have each crossed the boundaries that my wife and I have set, and I would guess that would have to do with both qualtiy and quantity. However, I am pretty sure they knew where we stood on each issue, and I am farily certain they crossed those boundaries with a sense that they were traviling outside a comfort zone. My wife and I worked pretty hard to advertise and edcuate about our set of values. Our kids tested those values - sometiems with impunity, and sometimes with definitive negative consequences. I don't want legislation to mitigate that process. I don't want to blame school officials when young people test boundaries.
Parents need to parent.
I am sick of the trend this country is taking. Everybody wants somebody else to be in charge of parenting our children. Of course, younger drivers should limit the number of passengers they carry. Of course, every driver should wear his set belt. Of course, school children should not turn displays of affection, which ought to be private no matter the age of the participants, into public enterprises.
If a law is passed that limits the number of passengers, or if the school does a better job of pollicing the kissers, will enything have really changed? The missing ingredient isn't the clarity or completeness of the legal code, or even the level of supervision at the school. The missing engredient is the set of values that curbs the questionable behaviors.
Parents need to acquaint their children who are younger drivers with the set of values that say a car is a potentially lethal weapon, and that every trip in a motor vehicle may end in tragedy. Also, parents need to convince their kids that showing affection toward their boyfrineds or girlfriends - in public venues - is simply in bad taste. If the children don't appreciate the value, the parents can demonstrate their point by having a gropefest right there in front of the children. Middle school and high school students will invariably find their parents' behavior disgusting, and after they vomit, the point will have been made.
My wife shared with me a conversation she had recently with a parent whose school had just adopted a uniform policy. The parent was ecstatic about the adoption of the policy, but not because the effect might be a better school environment, a cost-effective way to outfit the children, or an improvement in the relative appearance of the student body. No, this parent and others were ecstatic because they no longer had to fight with their children about their clothes choices. They were happy that a school dress code had precluded them from having to educate and influence their children.
The impetus for the Pennsylvania House Bill regarding passneger limitations is the same. Legislators crafted the bill because their constituant parents will support it. The parents will support it because they will need to have one fewer argument with their children. Many parents and studnets will refrain form carrying large numbers of passengers the minute the law is passed. That will be a positive side effect of POOR LEGISLATION.
Why poor legislation, you may ask. The answer should be obvious. The passage of the law will not eliminate the instances where young drivers carry too many passengers. You know, sometimes young drivers will BREAK the LAW! Sometimes, these young drivers fall prey to the distractions that plague young drivers, and they will sometimes have accidents. The negative side effect is that parents will be having one fewer conversation with their children about the way they should conduct themselves as they make their way through life.
Again, the complainant regarding the PDA episodes is motivated by the same faulty reasoning. If the school supervises and reduces the visible incidents, will the behavior really be changed? No, the adoption of a set of values that promotes self-discipline, and which encourages youngsters to be aware of the propriety of their behavior, will promote a resuction of the behavior.
In both cases, the most effective method for promotion of the positive behavior is the parent and all adults with whom the student comes into contact.
We will never be successful in legislating human behavior. Every adult must be responsible, to obviously different degrees, for the behavior of all younger people. The lady in the car who witnessed the PDA should have voiced her displeasure to the offenders. No, she shouldn't have confronted these people she didn't know, but she shouldn't have done nothing except go home and find a way to blame someone else.
My own three children have made it to young adulthood. Along the way, they have each crossed the boundaries that my wife and I have set, and I would guess that would have to do with both qualtiy and quantity. However, I am pretty sure they knew where we stood on each issue, and I am farily certain they crossed those boundaries with a sense that they were traviling outside a comfort zone. My wife and I worked pretty hard to advertise and edcuate about our set of values. Our kids tested those values - sometiems with impunity, and sometimes with definitive negative consequences. I don't want legislation to mitigate that process. I don't want to blame school officials when young people test boundaries.
Parents need to parent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)