Parenting: Spare the Rod?

   When talking extensively about parenting, the subject of child discipline is sure to surface. It’s been a hot topic over the years and deserves some serious discussion.The question of spanking a child is not easily answered definitively and will continue to be the subject of debate. Core to that debate is the point where spanking becomes abuse. Looking further into this subject, we should also note the point where discipline (non-physical) becomes abusive.

  

   “Spare the rod, spoil the child” is a phrase found in the Bible. Thus the idea that spanking has biblical roots, has already alienated every segment of the population that does not believe in the Bible. So lets have this discussion in a more practical sense and not fall back on “God said so.” 

  

   I grew up in a house where spanking was the norm (more norm than I enjoyed, but I was a particularly active youth). I can remember vividly, the sessions I got myself into by doing what every child that has ever lived has done…not listening. Today there are some that contend that I was abused as a child. To even begin to answer this, we need to first define exactly what abuse is. The proper definitions of it are:

¹abuse noun \ə-ˈbyüs\

1 :  a corrupt practice or custom

2:  improper or excessive use or treatment :  misuse <drug abuse>

3: obsolete :  a deceitful act :  deception

4:  language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily

5:  physical maltreatment

  

   Now one can argue that spanking is physical maltreatment. In fact, it’s rather difficult to argue against it. One could also say that depriving a child of a meal as a disciplinary measure (going to bed without dinner) is also improper or excessive (and thus abusive). Now, lets keep going down this rabbit hole and look at the practice of “time out.” A child does something wrong and as a disciplinary measure, they are deprived of privileges (or physical items) and told to go stand in the corner. All that needs to happen in that scenario is for enough people to think such a practice as “improper or excessive” and we have abuse (at least in their minds). Can you see how even the definition, applied as written (but probably not as intended) can be made to fit nearly any scenario? 

   So, was I abused as a child? I guess that now depends on how you choose to apply, or even define, abuse.

  

   I can say that for everyone saying that spanking doesn’t work, like anything in life, it works for some, but not for all. Did I consider that I would be spanked before I did something wrong? Yup. Did I do it anyway? Yup…if I calculated in my head that it was worth the risk. See, I never planned on getting caught, no child really does. The point was, I thought about it and it was thus, a deterrent. But my question in all this is…if not spanking, then what? The idea that physical force is never needed doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

  

   In the bigger picture of life, conflicts…taken to their extreme resolution, always end with force. It doesn’t matter if it’s between individuals, groups or entire countries. Now consider that child, when told to go to the corner for “time out,” decides instead to tell his parents to f@#k off. Where do you go when the child simply refuses to comply because the consequence just isn’t severe enough to induce obedience? I got news for those traveling this road…when you grab the child and physically put them in the corner or empty room, you have just applied force. Will a spanking be consequence enough in this child’s mind to induce obedience? I don’t know…only a spanking will tell.

   Which brings us back to the original question…do we spare the rod?

http://www.gotquestions.org/spare-rod-spoil-child.html

Parenting: Teacher or Santa Claus?

   So it seems parenting has become a recurring theme this month, and why not? Without a doubt, it has to be the single most important job in the world. Everyone alive today doing whatever it is they are doing, was shaped in part, by a parent or the guidance of someone other than themselves. What we teach those that will inherit the Earth will determine what kind of world future generations live in.

  

   Speaking of teaching, is this not the second most important job in the world? Without starting a rant into how important teachers are and how serious we should be taking the curriculum being presented to our children, the two most fundamental influences on the youth (besides each other) are parents and teachers. 

   There are many different approaches to parenting, as seen everyday if you just stop to observe. I’m not going to break all of it down in detail (at least not in this post), but instead narrow the focus on those parents that take every opportunity provided to prepare their children for the world they will inherit (through teaching) and those that practice gifting as a way to prepare the youth for tomorrow.

  

   I know, some of you are scratching your head now and wondering what the heck I’m talking about…but there are parents out there that absolutely give their child everything they desire, and think they are doing their children (and the world) some good by it. I personally think that spoiling your children will only produce, well, spoiled children…and when has ingesting (as the world will later) anything spoiled done anyone any good?

  

   Growing up with a sense of entitlement (through spoiling) will only make the lessons of the real world that much more unpleasant to learn. Of course, if you actually are among the uber wealthy, that sense of entitlement will simply keep you separated from the reality of the majority of the world…making you only suitable to be a politician. No, really…some of the most disconnected people on the planet are those that have nothing better to do than insert themselves into positions of deciding things for other people they know nothing about (and care even less), while convincing those same people they are just like them. If you think all this has nothing to do with parenting, then you’re not paying attention to the world you’re living on.

  

   Perhaps you are familiar with the saying “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he eats for life.” This is a perfect example of the difference between a parent that teaches, and one that thinks being Santa Claus is a daily occupation. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to giving children things, I just think those things should not always be the latest game system, communication device, or recreational object (better known as a toy). Instead it should be integrity, fundamental citizenship, self-esteem, kindness, self-defense and cooking (among other things).

  

   Parents that are focused on giving “things” to their children need to understand the “thing” they will be giving to the world after they are finished with the job they thought they were doing well…but were barely scratching the surface of. I’ve seen it and heard the philosophy behind it and can safely say that giving love is how love is taught and returned, not by giving Xbox One. Trust me, there isn’t an app for this.

  

   I’m not an expert on parenting. The experts are the people that have all the degrees and letters after their name, but no children. Yeah…listen to them if you like. I’m just a parent (to the tune of five children) that has learned a thing or two in my triumphs and mistakes in trying to raise children to be responsible and productive adults. I’m also a keen observer of life and have an excellent memory, and can tell you that parenting isn’t an exact science…but it’s pretty scientific in that every action has a reaction, and the cause you put forth is the effect you will get.

Teach your children responsibly…

Parenting: Role or Responsibility?

   Let me start off quickly and put forth that I think it’s a responsibility, not a role. There is truth in the saying that anyone can make a child, but it takes a parent to raise one. Just to be clear from the beginning, I’m certainly not saying that parents have to be linked to children through biology…I’m simply saying that the process of raising a child is what makes you a parent. 

  

   The counter argument is that anyone that has a child, or was part of the biological process, is a parent and technically that is correct, but I’m going deeper…and let me tell you why. This past Mother’s Day, a co-worker took a moment to wish me a Happy Mother’s Day. This was most unusual, since I’m a father. After pointing this out, he retorted that as a dad, he has had to play the role of both mother and father to his children at times. He further commented that all single dads and mothers play both roles. I can only suppose that since I’m the family cook, he must take it that I too play the mother role in some way.

   But hold on…is parenting a role or a responsibility?

  

   I gave this situation a great amount of thought as I’ve seen single women claim Father’s Day sighting the same reasoning as my co-worker. The idea that since there is no father present, the mother plays both roles.This sounds good except…I don’t buy it.

   Let’s start with the meaning of both mother and father as seen in the dictionary (Merriam-Webster):

moth-er
1 a :  a female parent

   b (1) :  a woman in authority; specifically :  the superior of a religious community of women (2) :  an old or elderly woman

3 : maternal tenderness or affection

   So clearly the term is reserved for a certain gender, indeed based and focused specifically for those able to bare children. 

fa-ther

: a male parent

: a man who is thought of as being like a father

: a person who was in someone's family in past times

1 a :  a man who has begotten a child; 

   

  

   So again, gender specific and nothing indicative of any “role” one plays other than being of a certain gender and having children. So where is all this claiming of days coming from when we celebrate the mothers and fathers of the world?

   Now I haven’t done a scientific study here, just used the good common sense given to me, and it seems that people are still clinging to old stereotypes pertaining to parental roles. The women stay home to cook and clean, while the men go to work and support the family.

  

   The problem with that is that it’s now 2014, and many two parent families need to have both parents working. Women earn just like men do, and men take care of the house if that’s what’s needed to take care of the family. The idea of a “role” is a fallacious one, replaced by parents, single or married, doing whatever is needed to raise their children (and thus, earning in my book, the title of “parent”).

   I don’t get a “Happy Mother’s day”…I’m not a mother. A mother doesn’t get a “Happy Father’s Day”…she’s not a father. Any single parent is either a single mother or father, raising their child, absolved of any outdated stereotypical role that is no longer reflective of reality.

   The only real role of a parent, is taking responsibility...and raising your child.

Movie Review: “Brick Mansions”

   

   I am an ardent fan of the cinematic arts. Although I have certain genre preferences, I don’t let that stifle my curiosity and close myself to different flavors of entertainment. That said...I am a huge fan of science fiction, super hero and action movies! Please visit my other blog The Boxed Office for reviews, exclusively, on these types of movies.

The Cast: 

Paul Walker, David Belle, and RZA

  

   Paul Walker is a talent that will be missed. Unfortunately, this film will not be remembered as one of his better roles, but in fairness to him, the script didn’t give him much to work with…at all. Playing a detective out for revenge for the death of his father, by taking down the city’s most dangerous criminals was a good start, and Walker sold it as much as the script allowed. However, without any real depth written for the character, there was only so much he could do.

  

   David Belle was actually a surprise here. As one of the founders of Parkour, his stunts were absolutely amazing and had me hooked at the beginning of the film. Again, with a sparsely written script, there wasn’t much for him to delve into so I guess I was just mostly impressed that he didn’t completely stink. Playing an ex-con trying to do right by the neighborhood, Belle isn’t going to win any awards for this one.

  

   RZA plays the bad guy Tremaine. Perhaps he was trying to go for “over-the-top” villain, perhaps not. It doesn’t really matter as his delivery was less than substantive, which says a lot considering he was probably the only person who’s character had enough leeway written into the script to do anything with. Honestly, the director should have said “cut” a few more times until he got it right.

The Plot: 

   In the near future Detroit is besieged with uncontrollable crime (wait, did I say the future?) and a section of it is so bad that it is walled off from the rest of the city with the people therein left to their own devices. The area hereafter referred to as Brick Mansions.

  

   The Mayor has decided that his nefarious plot for untold wealth rests in building up the area designated as Brick Mansions…after the buildings and people there are wiped out. Enter Damien (Walker) a detective with a score to settle, the perfect unwitting tool for the Mayor. Given a mission to “save” the area, he embarks on a journey of unpleasant revelations and realizations.

  

   Meanwhile Lino (Belle) is battling Tremaine (RZA) over the drug industry Tremain is running in Brick Mansions. Both become caught up in the intricacies of the Mayor’s plot as they cross paths with Damien and discover the truth. What follows is action without plot, and acting without substance.  

The Verdict: 

  It’s very rare I see a film this bad and I can honestly say that I was glad I didn’t have to pay for it (although now that I think about it, it was a complete waste of my Starpass rewards points). 

     The film begins to fail with the script and continues to fall apart with the lack of detail or attention paid to what is supposed to be going on. There are very few films that have this many holes in it, that I was audibly groaning in the theater and no matter how much they used slow motion (every other frame), it just didn’t help.

   Here are a few examples…

  

   

   After months of undercover work by Damien, on the night the police decide to bust the bad guy, they don’t have a single cop cover the back of the building? The bad guy conveniently escapes…into the ridiculous sequence of Damien holding onto the spoiler of a speeding car, while being shot at. It’s bad enough he picks the trunk lock during all this, but once inside the car (through the trunk), nobody thinks to STOP THE CAR to deal with him? I’m sorry, but for me, it’a a clear sign of a bad film when the driver doesn’t have enough common sense to realize he can’t fight or take continued shots to the face…and still maintain control of a vehicle going at ridiculous speeds. Stop the car.

  

   Later there is a chase as Lino and his girlfriend take Tremaine hostage and try to make a getaway in Tremaine’s car…a Mustang GT. Call me dumb, but if you really want to see a chase scene like this, you can’t have a 1980’s lemon, struggling to even maintain any motion, keep up with a Mustang. It just doesn’t sell in either the comparison of the cars, to the reason why Tremaine was so enamored by the car, when it’s revealed later he had access to some serious German engineering.

  

   Trust me when I say this doesn’t even begin to address all the stuff that was wrong with this film. I get that the Mayor was really the bad guy, and there was a message in the film trying to address the plight of the 99% against the 1%, but when the ex-soldier turned drug dealer in control of Brick Mansions runs for Mayor at the end…and they say he has a shot at success, it just goes way overboard for me.

   “Dumb” is the only way to describe this film as it was only able to flavor my tea with just one cinnamon stick, out of five, somehow snuck in when I wasn’t looking.

1/ 5

Dear Facebook…

   Social media has changed the world. I can’t say if it’s been changed for better or worse as that depends on your personal experience with it. What I can say is that some of the stuff I’ve observed has given me pause to consider if people can generally be a bit more responsible when using it. Understand that this post is going to be purely opinion driven, but if people can use social media to vent…then I can use this blog to share my critique of their observed venting.

  

   Now I’m not going to spend too much time talking about those folks that have turned Facebook into their own platform to rant about the one thing that bothers them most in life…with…every…single…post. I suppose a need is met as I’ve observed these soapbox face bookers with audiences that participate in every discussion as if something new were being discussed, instead of the exact same rant. I’ll just chalk it up to a shared chip on many shoulders and keep it moving.

  

   I would like to discuss, however, those people that see Facebook as simply a free therapist or personal diary, that’s not so personal. For me it’s entertainment, for them I have to believe it’s therapy…with a bunch of people unqualified for the position of a therapist. In their defense though, sometimes an ear to listen is enough. I just don’t see social media in general, or Facebook in particular, to be the best venue when seeking help with mental or emotional instability. I’ve seen several recurring subjects here that I’d like to shed some light on.

   Status Subject: Nobody likes me.

   Umm…ok, I can see how you could come to this conclusion and then communicate it to the five-hundred friends you have. I’m sure none of them take it personally that you think they don’t like you, after all…what are friends for?

  

Status Subject: I’m lonely looking for my mate.

   Another great point to communicate to the five-hundred friends you have. I’m sure those friends you hang out with every weekend appreciate the sentiment and those friends thinking of becoming real life interactions instead of Facebook associates are thrilled. Not only that though, anyone you were thinking of as a potential mate on your friends list surely doesn’t see you as desperate and has confidence in your social filter.

   Status Subject: Advise me on my

mental/emotional issues.

   Now this is the million dollar status. I’m shocked you are surprised or offended by anything posted in response as you have opened up the floodgates for an opinionated and candid critique of the insanity you are displaying. Yes, everyone has problems, but using a public forum to solve them probably isn’t going to work. It’s more likely to turn into a dramatic spectacle wherein you get further damaged, and I get entertained.

  

   These are just a few examples of how not to use Facebook, in my opinion. Everyone is free to do as they wish, but you should realize that life is a series of actions and reactions, and social media is no different.

  

   Think it’s not true? Do you envision social media to be immune from the consequences of living recklessly? If so, just ask anyone that has lost their job in recent years behind pictures or status posts that were seen by the wrong people that decided to act according to their own moral compass. Is it right? I don’t know, it’s not for me to judge, I just observe that it happens and the responsible user recognizes this fact.

  

   So, the next time you log into your account ask yourself…are you about to post another episode of “Dear Facebook?” You certainly have the audience for it as it is human nature to stop and look at car wrecks, and there seems to be no shortage of those on Facebook…metaphorically speaking.

http://www.dolbey.com/uncategorized/spectrum-health-employees-fired-over-facebook-picture/

Who Do You Trust?

   Life is amazing and I find it interesting, insane, and sad (all at the same time) that there seem to be so many people, willing or not, living in the role of “sheep.” Don’t get me wrong, I don’t know everything and don’t claim to know any more than the next person, but I believe myself to have a small amount of practical sense that I use to reach good reason.

   I suppose the opening paragraph is the answer to the question of this post…for me. Who do you trust? I trust myself. I trust I can figure some things out and that in doing so, my decisions will reflect intelligence. Recently I have come to question this ability in others (well…to be honest, this isn’t the first time) when I see so many people still giving trust to entities that have no regard for them.

  

   I take my health very seriously…so why would I trust a company, any company with the primary goal to make money, with my personal well being? I wonder how many people really ask themselves this very same question, especially when I see so many on prescription drugs trusting that a pharmaceutical company really cares about them instead of their own profits.

  

   I’ve always been an advocate of taking your health into your own hands and being diligent in discovering what’s best for you. Now I see commercials advocating the exact opposite and promoting a complete trust in your doctor, after all…he or she is the expert, and you’re just an idiot. At least, they hope you are.

  

   Recently there has been a ruckus over the official position Wegmans supermarkets has taken in the controversy over GMO foods. For those not in the know, GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The debate over them would be a complete post unto itself, really…so I’m not going into it now except to say that if you think I’m going to trust and believe a company looking to increase it’s profit through modified food when it comes to the question of if that food is safe for me to eat, then you really haven’t been paying me any attention. That’s cool.

  

   Moving on, I really can’t believe anyone still trusts the FDA, but I know people still do. I just sit and scratch my head on this one. I mean, if the FDA were some independent body with no ties to the industry it regulates then maybe I could take it seriously. But when food and drug company execs are put in charge of it and FDA higher ups go to work for the companies they regulate after they retire…it just strains credibility to believe they’re thinking of me when they make decisions about my health.

  

   Corporations care about you. If I write it again, will you believe it then? Did you believe it the first time I wrote it? Think for a moment, people go to jail if they fail to make money for the shareholders. Do you really think they’re going to do time just to keep you healthy? I’m flabbergasted that when there is a person of conscience that leaves the company and blows the whistle, we treat them like they’re still the criminal, ignoring the atrocities for which they’re blowing the whistle. Yep…pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  

   As if the culling of society by the corporations wasn’t enough, we also have to deal with the politicians. I mean, why are we still falling for the okie-doke? Why are we acting like there’s some huge difference between the Republicans and Democrats when both cater to the exact same special interests (back to the corporations)? Why is it when we come across a politician that tells it like it is (usually going against the grain…alone), we don’t rally behind them?

  

   We, the people, are our own worst enemy. We don’t seem to trust ourselves to have the sense to know what’s right (in all fairness, some of us just don’t…insert the woman that thinks deer read deer crossing signs) and so trust others that don’t care about what’s right. As I said at the beginning…interesting, insane, and sad. I grieve daily.

http://www.wegmans.com/blog/2014/04/issues-we-care-about/#more-20274

http://youtu.be/CI8UPHMzZm8

For The Flag

   

   

  Every so often I examine some innocuous event in my life and am often rewarded with greater wisdom and insight, not only into myself, but in the world in which I live. Although I describe the recent event I’m about to discuss as “innocuous,” at the time it was very much perceived differently by mostly all that bore witness.  

   While driving along here in Massachusetts, a loud pickup truck passed by with a rebel flag decal on the back window. I was returning from food shopping with some family and, being Americans of primarily African descent, the reaction to the flag decal was…interesting.

   The prevailing assumption was that the person driving the truck must be supportive of what the flag stood for. I really shouldn’t have to remind anyone about the old saying of judging a book by the cover, but there it is. I also shouldn’t have been surprised that upon my investigation into understanding this event, there is much more to the flag and those that display it, than the assumptions often made about either.

  

   Quick research into the flag reveals that it is not the official flag of the Confederacy, but the battle flag of Northern Virginia (The rectangular version being from the Army of Tennessee). Also the design of the flag is suggestive of simply wanting to be crossed out of the Union ala putting an “X” through something to signify it being removed from something else, with the stars representing the thirteen original united colonies. Today the flag has come to be known as a symbol for the South being called the Rebel Flag, Dixie Flag, and Southern Cross and is displayed by many as simply a symbol of southern pride and heritage, not racism and hate.

  

   The problem here is that although one can say they want a symbol to represent something, when it is used in a certain way, it often comes to represent something different to others. A good example of this is the Nazi’z use of the swastika. They were not the originators of the symbol, but it is now forever linked to their use of it. Something similar has now happened to the Rebel Flag partly due to the use of it by groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the Dixiecrats, but also due to becoming a representation of the Confederate South and what it stood for. 

   The argument has been made (and rightly so) that the succession of the South was not all about slavery, but the federal  government infringing upon states rights. The truth is that no matter what the full grievances were, slavery was key among them as evidenced from the Confederate Constitution (Article 1, Section 9(4) and Article 4, section 2(1)). The introduction of any anti-slave law or policy would have been unconstitutional in the Confederate States of America.

   That said, I’m curious as to what exactly is meant by the saying “The South will rise again”…but that’s for another post.

   

   Even though the Rebel Flag was not the official standard of the CSA, it did appear as part of the official flag, and considering the negative presentation is has gotten from some and the tenants of the CSA, it’s really no wonder why it gets the reaction it does or why many think it to be a symbol of hate. That, however, should not automatically be translated into the motivations or intentions of those that display it. To put it bluntly, everyone that displays the Rebel Flag is not a racist in support of slavery.

  

   I’ll go further and say that if you think that everyone that chooses to represent themselves with the Rebel Flag is a racist, then you might as well think the same of anyone displaying The Stars and Stripes. What do you think the Cheyenne village of Chief Black Kettle at Sand Creek Colorado think of the American Flag? Let’s also not forget that the Ku Klux Klan also waves the American Flag. It seems to me that a personal choice of flag is not an accurate indicator of personal motivations.

   All we experience in life is a matter of perspective. Growing up in the North, I was taught the history of the Civil War. If I were born down South, I might have learned it as the “War of Northern Aggression.” History is past events that cannot be changed while the future is what we choose to make it. People are making choices daily, and I choose to understand why those choices are made before I condemn them.

   It's amazing what you can learn when you judge a book, not by its cover, but by the content within the pages. When everything and everyone you observe is the "book" you are choosing to read...self growth and inner understanding is inevitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

http://youtu.be/7qfX0uXDktY

http://elm.washcoll.edu/index.php/2012/09/heritage-or-racism-the-confederate-flag/

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/pendulum/issues/2005/04_07/opinions/flag.xhtml?m=1

http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/FLAG/confederateflag.htm

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rebel+flag

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystie-yandoli/confederate-flag-racism-debate_b_3876157.html#closeOverlay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Kettle