A One Man Dam

My Blog Has Move

Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:15:51 -0400

You can now find it at http://aonemandam.quora.com.

"The french fry fell on the floor, and it’s funny. I like funny."

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:46:59 -0500

“The french fry fell on the floor, and it’s funny. I like funny.”

- My son

What questions should (and shouldn't) parents ask themselves when deciding how they will raise their child?

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:54:08 -0500

This is a really important question because I believe “modern parents” continually ask themselves the wrong question, and it is leading to generations of children who are growing up to be incompetent narcissists.

This wrong question is “how will this [event, action, outcome, etc.] make my child feel?”. Given that the ideal feeling is happiness, modern parents’ actions and inactions are all directed towards making their children happy. The problem with this mindset is that there are many things in life that evoke negative emotions that are beneficial to the development of a child and many things that result in positive emotions but adversely affect childhood development. But when parents’ worldviews see happiness as the end-all-be-all, their actions will almost never permit them to allow their child to experience these “negative-emotion-positive-outcome” events, and they will often tolerate or encourage “positive-emotion-negative-outcome” events.

The correct question for all parents to ask is “will this [event, action, outcome, etc.] make my child into a better adult?”. (I define a good adult as one who is a humble, caring, productive, happy member of society.) Children’s feelings are of secondary importance relative to how an experience will affect their development as an adult. So if something will make a child a better adult, it’s okay that they experience negative emotions. If something will make them a worse adult, then it does not matter if it makes them feel good, that experience should be avoided.

Here are some scenarios that show how these distinct worldviews can lead to dramatically different parenting styles and consequences. (Note: the consequences highlighted below presume a continual behavior pattern consistent with the one illustrated in the scenario, not simply a single instance of the scenario.)

SCENARIO 1: Child gets cut from their sports team

How a Feelings-Based Parents React

Child is devastated so the parents either argue with the coach to get their child reinstated, create another league for the cut children, or create a school policy that children cannot be cut from teams.

CONSEQUENCE: The child never improves the necessary skillsets to make the team because he no longer needs to. Additionally, you create an adult without the drive to improve themselves because he expects the world to adjust to him and not penalize him for his weaknesses.

How an Outcome-Based Parents React

Parent explains to the child that he either needs to get better and try again next year or move on to another endeavor for which be is better suited.

CONSEQUENCE: The child is forced to improve his skillset or find something that fits his strengths. Either way, he develops a sense of tenacity, becomes better at something, and understands he needs to improve in order to succeed rather than having the world adjust to his weaknesses.

SCENARIO 2: Child gets verbally disciplined by an adult who is not their parent

How a Feelings-Based Parents React

Child is sad, embarrassed, and possibly frightened, so his parents confront the disciplining adult and tell them not to speak to their child.

CONSEQUENCE: Child’s respect for authority is weakened and turns into an adult who does not believe they do anything wrong and is unable to accept criticism.

How an Outcome-Based Parents React

Child was in the wrong, so the parent either takes no action or reinforces the message of the disciplining adult.

CONSEQUENCE: An adult who has a respect for authority, understands that they are fallible, and has the ability to receive criticism and make themselves better as a result of it.

SCENARIO 3: Child wants an expensive care for their 16th b-day

How a Feelings-Based Parents React

Child gets the car because it will make him happy.

CONSEQUENCE: A spoiled child who expects that the best life has to offer be handed to him. He feels a tremendous sense of entitlement and, as an adult, becomes unhappy with a world that does not hand him everything on a silver platter.

How an Outcome-Based Parents React

Child gets a reasonably priced car because receiving extravagant gifts as a teenager can lead him to become spoiled.

CONSEQUENCE: Turns into an adult who understands that he has a supportive family unit behind him, but he will need to earn the finer things in life.

SCENARIO 4: Child gets a bad grade

How a Feelings-Based Parents React

Child feels bad, so parents take the path that will make the child happy without making him/her feel worse in the interim. They approach the teacher, defend their child’s work, and demand that the grade be improved.

CONSEQUENCE: The child believes he can do no wrong, his respect for authority is weakened (as parents attack teacher), and his skill set is not improved because he did not need to do anything to improve his grade.

How an Outcome-Based Parents React

Parents know that a competent adult needs to understand this particular academic subject, so they explain to the child he needs to shape up and improve the grade.

CONSEQUENCE: the child learns that he has underperformed, develops a respect for authority (parent and teacher), and he is forced to do what it takes to improve himself in order to achieve the better grade.

Extreme Makeover: Spoiled Brat Edition

Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:58:11 -0400

I recently ran across this article in USAToday … and I threw up all over my dinner plate.

Feel free to read the article, but the gist of it is that a number of college students are now getting their dorm rooms decorated by interior designers.

F#%*! me.

Now look, I don’t mind parents giving their kids some nice bedding and decorations for their dorm rooms. It’s okay to provide for your children and send them off to college with a nice proverbial pat on the butt, but hiring interior designers for your Freshman and then buying thousands and thousands of dollars worth of furnishings is ridiculous. Two reasons.

Your child should not be the center of your universe. By enabling your child to avail themselves of such expensive and indulgent services as an interior designer, you are putting your child on a pedestal, which is incredibly unhealthy for their development. Don’t believe me? Let me quote from one of the brats in this article. “I would probably be jealous if somebody had a cuter room, but nobody does,” Griffin Knight says. “I am quite spoiled, and I am well aware.” … Holy s#*?balls!

Your child needs to learn independence. One of the most important things (if not the most important thing) that college can instill in a teenager is a sense of independence. You must let them do for themselves so that they can become well-adjusted, self-sufficient, competent adult. Hiring an interior designer to design what is likely your child’s first thing that is truly their own is a complete subversion of weaning your children from your teat. How selfish can you be?

Unfortunately, in the Age of Modern Parenting, this sort of s#*! is par for the course.

P.S. Given my subject line, I feel I should have made some sort of Extreme Makeover pun, but nothing seemed organic. So … Move that bus!!

Quora Question: Is it legal for my ex to force our 12-year-old to take public transportation?

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:16:37 -0400

I am not being flippant when I say this - statistically speaking (which, frankly, is what truly matters) it is more irresponsible for you to take your child places in your car than it is for your ex to put him on public transportation. The odds of you getting into a car accident (whether your fault or the other driver’s) is incredibly more likely to happen than a kidnapping or any other conceivable mishap via public transportation.

People’s perception of the unsafeness of public transportation is driven largely by (i) the fact that public transportation was less safe decades ago and (ii) the media’s unrelenting coverage of incredibly rare events like kidnappings by strangers (which is one of the key fears parents have when it comes to their children and public transportation).

Further, not only is your son’s use of public transportation safe, but it is also good for him and for you. It will instill a sense of independence, confidence, and competence in your child as well as put your fears into perspective and make you a less worrisome person.

(The one caveat here is if either end of your son’s commute is in a high crime area, then public transportation may not be a good idea. But there are several indicators here that lead me to believe that this is not the case.)

Aly Raisman's Parents: Please God, Let's Just Enjoy this for What it Is

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:57:00 -0400

A few nights ago, my wife and I were watching Aly Raisman’s amazing uneven bar routine. Then the cameras replayed her parents’ reactions as she was executing said routine. It was organic, genuine, and hysterical. It was a perfect visual and auditory encapsulation of what it is to be a parent.

My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed it, and when I woke up the next morning, I saw that the rest of the country was equally captivated by the moment.

And so I ask one favor of this child-obsessed, hyper-competitive, me-first generation that are modern parents — let’s appreciate that moment for what it was and move on. In a world where parents now think they are as much a part of their child’s sport as their child is and where parents are obsessively measuring themselves against one another, I can see the Raismans’ wonderful, spontaneous moment being bastardized and turned into a litmus test for who loves their child more.

Not gyrating your body wildly as your son swings at that pitch? Well you clearly don’t love him as much as you should. My daughter’s returning a serve at her high school’s tennis semi-finals, so I better mutter nervously under my breath or else people will think I don’t care enough. Time to manufacture a scream of pure joy so fellow parents will clearly see my love for my little ballerina.

Let’s understand that love is displayed and measured in many different ways, and most of them don’t need to be (in fact, shouldn’t be) at the in-your-face level. So just because the Raisman’s act the way they do (perfectly fine for them), does not mean that it is now the standard by which all parents’ love should be judged. Silent observation or (god forbid) not even going to your child’s sporting events are 100% acceptable behaviors.

One last request. Although this one is for the media. Please don’t ruin this. I don’t want to see all of sport littered with “parent cams.” I don’t want to see how Maria Sharapova’s parents react to her serve, and I don’t care if Alex Rodriguez’s mom bounces her knee or screams expletives when he’s up at bat. I watch sports for the world-class athletes, not their parents. Moreover, if you do institute ubiquitous parent cams, you will accelerate and beget the exact type of deplorable competitive-loving scenarios that I am praying don’t happen. So although I know you have no idea what the words “special”, “self-restraint”, and “moment” mean, I beg you not to ruin what is truly a memorable Olympic snapshot by turning it into a played-out cliché that has negative societal consequences.

Is polygamy an attack on the institution of marriage?

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:37:00 -0400

The answer is yes, polygamy is an attack on (traditional) marriage. However, this then begs the question - is that a bad thing? My answer would be “not necessarily.”

There are four potential “marriage structures” that are worthy of discussion - monogamy, polyamory, bigamy, and polygamy. I think a society that permits and accepts the first three will see much greater success in permanent, happy bondings. And I believe permanent, happy bondings are the key to a moral, productive, and happy society.

MONOGAMY: Traditional marriage falls into this bucket. Inherently, human beings are not monogamous animals. Therefore, forcing this structure universally across our species is not wise and, not surprisingly, this reality manifests itself in the form of incredibly high (>50%) divorce rates in the U.S. (and that doesn’t even account for the portion of the intact marriages that are unhappy). Having said that, invariably there is a portion of the population who desires complete monogamy, so this social construct works for that group of people, just not everyone. (For the record, I fall into this bucket.)

POLYAMORY: For the purposes of this answer, I will define polyamory as a marriage between two people where one or both partners openly have discrete “affairs” (meaning each partner knows that the other is having affairs (i.e., open), but neither flaunts it within the relationship or publicly (i.e., discrete)). I think polyamory is probably the most natural social construct for people. It provides both the stability and emotional satisfaction of a permanent relationship while providing the excitement and variety of new encounters. And these affairs will actually act to strengthen the permanent relationship since they act as an outlet. They provide the variety that humans’ natural non-monogamy requires so that people can sustain the long-term “monogamous” relationship without feeling the need to leave permanently (i.e., divorce).

BIGAMY: For the purposes of this answer, I will define bigamy as one person being married to two other people (e.g., a heterosexual man married to two heterosexual women) or three people all being married to each other (e.g., a heterosexual man married to two bi-sexual women who are married to each other as well). The benefit of this structure is that the variety provided to one or more partners can, as with a polyamorous relationship, help sustain the permanent bonding structure. It may not be as varied as polyamory, but it still may be enough variety for some people to help them sustain a long-lasting relationship. Additionally, each partner can fulfill roles and needs that one of the other partners cannot or does not want to.

Take a hypothetical situation in which a wife loves to shop and the husband hates to. In a traditional marriage, one of the partners is going to be put in an unsatisfactory situation (the husband will have to go shopping with the wife, or the wife will have to shop alone). However, in a bigamous marriage, the two wives can go shopping together (permitted they both like shopping) and the man can go do something he would rather do. Also, bigamy permits a family that has both a dual-income AND a stay-at-home parent structure.

POLYGAMY: For the purposes of this answer, I will define polygamy as one person married to three or more people (e.g., a heterosexual man married to five heterosexual women). Put simply, polygamy should continue to be permanently outlawed. Once a “marriage” has extended beyond three people in total, the motivations for bonding are no longer rooted in love and/or wanting to create a healthy family structure. Instead it becomes solely about the power. Why exactly that is the case is probably the topic of a different post, but history has born out the fact that once a man takes a large number of wives, the situation devolves into a cult-like territorial atmosphere in which the patriarch’s goal is to exercise extreme control over the clan, increase the size of the clan, and possibly confront other clans.

An important note. I’m not saying that there are not downsides to polyamory or bigamy. There absolutely are. Negative forces such as jealousy, complicated logistics, and initial societal taboos will most definitely exist. However, over time, as people acclimate to these new structures, they would learn how to deal with them just as monogamous people learn to deal with the issues that come along with a traditional marriage. On that note, it’s not as if monogamy doesn’t have it’s own issues (50%+ divorce rates, unhappiness, non-consenting affairs). So the point is not to find the perfect solution for everyone. The point is to make a number of viable social constructs available in our society so that each person can pick the one that best suits their disposition in order to maximize the odds of a successful (i.e., permanent) relationship.

If I had to guess what the best societal distribution of the three viable relationship structures is (and this is based on absolutely nothing but a gut feel), I would say: + 20% of relationships should be monogamous + 70% should be polyamorous + 10% should be bigamous

Quora Question: Is being fiscally conservative and socially liberal the most enlightened ideological stance for a US citizen?

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:32:00 -0400

Conservatives are idiots. Liberals are idiots. Centrists are idiots. If your ideology doesn’t span the entire political spectrum, you’re not thinking.

Anyone who subscribes to a broad ideology is, by definition, not enlightened. The enlightened stance is the one that simply seeks the correct answers in order to arrive at the optimal solution. Given that the world is a complex place, it is highly unlikely that a homogenous position such as “social liberal” or “fiscal conservative” would enable a citizen to arrive at the correct conclusion the majority of the time.

So the most enlightened stance is the one that embraces radical, liberal, centrist, conservative, and reactionary positions. Only with the ability to employ and accept positions from across the entire political spectrum can someone arrive at the right answers and therefore claim enlightenment.

Quora Question: Why are there so many mass shootings in the U.S.?

Sun, 22 Jul 2012 13:13:00 -0400

There are three things needed for a single mass shooting, and there is one additional item needed for “so many mass shootings.”

For a single mass shooting you need (i) a mentally unstable person (or people), (ii) a location where a sizable number of people congregate, and (iii) relatively easy access to automatic or semi-automatic guns. (i) and (ii) can never disappear from our society, and it is unlikely that (iii) will change as we would need a constitutional amendment or a supreme court ruling with a different interpretation of the Second Amendment. As a result, there will always be a risk of a single mass shooting.

However, there is a distinct fourth factor that has led to the proliferation of mass shootings over the last 20 years - the media. Although it may seem trite to blame the media once again for a societal ill, in this case the media and it’s insatiable 24/7 news cycle have caused the “many” mass shootings that have occurred in the U.S. and perhaps the world. It is inevitable that a mass shooting would occur at some point in our history given points (i), (ii), and (iii). However, these would have been the brainchild of a single madman who’s evil idea would have stayed isolated to the town in which the slayings were committed.

But thanks to the media’s non-stop nationwide coverage of a given mass shooting (Columbine, for example), they firmly implant and glorify the idea in the heads of many mentally disturbed people throughout the U.S. Historically, these mentally unbalanced people would have simply hated life and killed themselves. Limiting the tragedy to a single individual. However, the media has now shown them a “more satisfying” way to leave this world. Before you take your own life, take those of the ones who made you feel this way (invariably there is collateral damage in the form of people who never interacted with the killer but get shot anyway).

Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do since the media has already propagated this mass killing idea throughout our society. However, the media makes it worse every time they incessantly cover these incidents (Aurora, CO), since they give renewed life to this concept and reenergize a base of sickos. So it won’t be long (18 months) until the next mass shooting.

Why are there so many mass shootings in the U.S.?

Mommies: Natural Born Worriers

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:14:09 -0400

Every once in a while there are questions on Quora I feel compelled to answer. In some of those instances, I’ll post the question and my response here. Here’s one from the other day.

Quora Question: Why does my mom always worry about me?

Why I Answered: All of the answers were very touchy feely like “because she loves you”, but none of them really hit on the true root cause, in my opinion. Below is the answer I posted.

—-

As poetic and touching as some of these answers are, none of them are correct. If “she loves you” was correct, then you would have the same experience with your dad since he loves you too. Or if “you’re always her little boy” was correct, then, again, you would have the same experience with your dad since you’re his little boy too. Yet there is clearly a distinct way in which mothers worry and express this worry (relative to fathers), which is why this question is even being asked.

As sterile as it may be, the truth lies in chemistry and evolution. Your mom worries about you because she has more estrogen and less testosterone than your father, and there is an evolutionary advantage for her to worry.

ESTROGEN V. TESTOSTERONE

Although there are many chemicals at play in the human body that drive behavioral differences between men and women, for the sake of brevity I will focus on two of the most impactful chemicals that separate men and women - testosterone and estrogen. Although, our moms and dads both have testosterone and estrogen in their systems, men have more testosterone and women have more estrogen. Among other characteristics, Testosterone drives risk taking, aggression and social isolationism in men. Whereas with women, Estrogen (as well as the lower levels of Testosterone) deemphasizes risk taking and isolationism in favor of community building, empathy, and nurturing, part of which is worrying.

EVOLUTION

Eons of evolution ensured that the children of the most protective (i.e., the most worried) mothers survived to pass on their genes. To illustrate this point in a simplistic manner:

Tens of thousands of years ago there were mothers and fathers. The fathers went out to hunt, and the women stayed back to tend to the homestead and care for the children. Thus it was largely up to the mother to ensure the safety of the children. In these times, which were actually dangerous (wild animals, exposure to the elements, minor injuries leading to fatal infections), the mothers that worried the most typically ended up with the most living children. Those children then went on to worry about their own children, who would then survive to continue to pass on their predisposition for worrying.

The children of those mothers who did not really worry about their safety went on to fall of cliffs, get eaten by tigers, and get lost in forests; thus they did not survive to pass in their mothers’ laid back approach. In short, worrying ensured survival to pass on your genes for worrying.

And this predilection was most important for women to have and to pass down to their daughters because, again, generations ago there was far more of a genetic advantage for women to worry since they were the ones who spent the majority of their time as guardians of the children.

The “worry gene” in men was far less valuable as (1) they were not with the children enough during the day for the worrying to have a protective effect on the children and (2) being worried about their children could distract men from effectively hunting and providing enough food for the family to survive and pass on their genes. So it actually benefited males to stay focused on their specialty and not be distracted by what was going on back in the cave.

So this is not to say that fathers don’t worry. They do. But this worry is either at much lower levels or manifests itself in different ways such that children are not exposed to it in the manner in which they are by their mothers.

"Don’t ridicule and shun because it’s fun (it’s not). Do it because shame is a..."

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:03:07 -0400

“Don’t ridicule and shun because it’s fun (it’s not). Do it because shame is a critical societal force in preventing negative fringe behavior from becoming mainstream.”

- A One Man Dam

Holy Sh*t! The Most Ridiculous Top 10 Parenting List I have Ever Read

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:00:00 -0400

The Issue: There was an article written by Woman’s Day that listed ten things never to say to your kids. Eight or nine of the verboten items are perfectly fine things to say, but the scourge known as modern parenting has outlawed common sense and thoughtful parenting in favor of emotional parenting and faux self esteem.

Call to Action: Ridicule and shun. Ridicule the author. Ridicule Woman’s Day. Shun anyone who subscribes to this type of parenting. Don’t do it because it’s fun to pick on people (it’s not, and it makes you feel terrible doing it). Ridicule and shun because shame is a critical societal force in preventing negative fringe behavior from becoming mainstream.
——
A recent article on womansday.com highlighted ten things never to say to your kids. Virtually every single one is absurd. Not only are most fine to say, but they actually result in positive behaviors and psychological development.

I will list the ten items below and comment only briefly and snarkily. For the most part, I will not even attempt constructive criticism because there is no actual substance here. This sort of thinking (and I use the term loosely) is based on modern parenting - a parenting style that focuses on making sure the parent doesn’t feel bad rather than the best way to raise a child.

10 Things You Should Never Say to Your Kids

1. “I know you can try harder.” God forbid we call kids out on their bullsh*t. Look, we all know what our kids are and aren’t capable of. If your B student is pulling Cs, feel free to use this newly banned phrase.

2. “Are you sure you need that second cupcake?” We have an obesity epidemic in this country for god’s sake. Your little porkers are eating their way to an early grave (and ugly appearance), and you’re supposed to dance around this issue? Of course you shouldn’t call your kids “lardo” or “fatty-fatty-two-by-four-couldn’t-get-through-the-kitchen-door”, but you absolutely should make them aware of their poor eating habits. However, I do agree with Woman’s Day here, but for different reasons. You shouldn’t ask your kids if they need that second cupcake - tell them that they don’t.

3. “You always…” or “You never…” If your child always or never does certain things that he should not be (or should be) doing, then pointing this out to them in a direct manner should help correct this behavior or mentally prepare them to receive honest feedback in life. Oh, the horror.

4. “Why can’t you be more like your sister/brother?” Okay, this one I agree with. If there is a sure-fire way to develop insecurity, rebellion, and sibling rivalry while not actually changing negative behavior, this phrase is the way to do it.

5. “I told you waiting until the last minute was a mistake!” Careful. Pointing out consequences to her actions could cause your child to improve her behavior/performance. Heavens to Betsy!

6. “You’re the best at soccer!” F*ck me. What are these people smoking over at Woman’s Day?! The best part is their reasoning behind this sage bit of advice “[E]ven the positive pronouncements can be bad because they are limiting. ‘Say you always tell your child how smart she is. She may, over time, become scared of trying new things or more challenging work, for fear she won’t be [considered] ‘smart’ anymore.’”

7. “Don’t worry—the first day of school will be fine.” Again, f*ck me. And, again, the best part is their reasoning. “If you tell your child not to worry, you’re dismissing her feelings. So now, she’s still worried about the first day of school, and she’s worried that she’s worried, or that you’re upset over her worry.”

8. “Because I said so!” I agree that it’s always best if you have sound reasoning behind why you tell your kids to do things and to communicate that to them. But saying “because I said so” is actually a very healthy thing in their psychological development. Simply put, it teaches them to respect authority, which is a mindset that is sorely lacking in today’s youth (and the youth of the last generation or two). If your boss tells you to do something and you don’t know or understand the reasoning behind it, it doesn’t matter. Just do it because she’s your boss.

9. “I wish you didn’t hang out with Jack; I don’t like that kid.” This is a tough one. I’m on the fence and not sure if I agree with them or not.

10. “That’s not how you do it! Here, let me.” I agree with this one only insofar as I believe you should let your children do for themselves so they learn autonomy and achievement (which is where real self esteem comes from, by the way). Having said that, I 100% believe that sometimes our kids are doing a sh*tty or half-assed job on things, and sometimes you need to let them know they’re not doing a good job, take the reigns, and show them how to do it right.

There’s an underlying theme with this article’s stupid advice, which is that you should never say harsh words of any kind to your children. Wrong. There are definitely limits (don’t tell your child he’s worthless or stupid or ugly), but harsh words can serve very valuable purposes in their psychological development like snapping them back to reality, building a thicker skin, and giving them a respect for authority.

Now I’m angry. I going to walk over to my son now and kick over his fort just to teach him to respect authority.

"If something has less than a 0.01% chance of killing us, we’re not allowed to set up a legal..."

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:41:52 -0400

“If something has less than a 0.01% chance of killing us, we’re not allowed to set up a legal framework to protect us against it.”

- A One Man Dam

Sunburned Students. Who's to Blame? Everyone.

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:41:00 -0400

The Issue: There’s probably a little bit of blame to go around for everyone involved in the recent hubbub surrounding the two students who were on the receiving end of some “severe” sunburns - the mom, the teacher, the school, and the state. But the biggest perpetrator is the media for once again turning a less-than-minor issue into a national calamity.

Call to Action: There’s probably nothing to do or that we can do. I just wish the media would stop making mountains out of mole hills.

——

The news that’s been out for the last week about the two students who got sunburned on a field trip highlights the ridiculous state our society has reached, and everyone involved is to blame - the media in particular.

The Mom. Lady, you know your kids are sensitive to the sun, and if this fact is something that scares you, then always keep your kids’ backpacks stocked with sunscreen and a note from their doctor so that they are allowed to apply it. Further, the biggest travesty here is the media’s insane level of coverage of this non-event (I’ll get to that in a minute). Well, who told the media in the first place? The mom. My sisters and I got sunburns when we were kids. You know who our mom told? Our dad. Not the neighbors, not county officials, not 60 Minutes. Her husband. Going forward, please keep news of your kids’ lives confined to your backyard.

The Teacher. I know your school/state has a policy not to apply sun tan lotion to students for fear of allergic reaction, but please, use common sense. When you see two little tater tots roasting before your eyes, lube them up with some Coppertone. I don’t care if bouncers and carnival ride operators just “do what they’re told”, but you’re an educated, free-thinking teacher for god’s sake. Exercise some judgment and free will.

The School and the State. Are you kidding me? You passed a law forbidding the application of sun tan lotion so as to prevent allergic reactions? I haven’t looked at any statistics lately, but I’m going to guess that the odds of suffering a life-threatening allergic reaction at the hands of Hawaiian Tropic falls somewhere between getting abducted by aliens and death by chocolate. New rule for our society: if something has less than a 0.01% chance of killing us, we’re not allowed to set up a legal framework to protect us against it.

The Media. You motherf*ckers. You lazy, incompetent motherf*ckers. You lazy, incompetent, fear-mongering motherf*ckers. There’s not enough storage capacity on tumblr for me to fully go into why the media is one of the most harmful forces in American society today. So I will keep it short.

As we all have heard a thousand times, the proliferation of news outlets and the 24/7 news cycle has led to a need to fill the air with more content than ever before. Since the world does not contain that much important, relevant information, the media needs to manufacture newsworthy events by turning non-problems into epidemics.

If simply creating useless news was the end of the story, I probably wouldn’t have a big issue with the media - I would simply continue to not watch it. However, much of the news they manufacture is fear-based. When people are shoveled mouthfuls of “be afraid of [fill in the blank]” all day, every day, they become afraid. And because 99% of these news items have almost no chance of ever happening to anyone, the media creates a society of people who are fearful of things they have absolutely no reason to be afraid of. Moreover, in this particular case, not only are they helping to perpetuate a deathly fear of our own sun, but they are also making mildly incompetent people and institutions seem like war criminals.

To quote George Jetson, “Jane, stop this crazy thing!”

"Always vote for principle (though you may vote alone) and you may cherish the sweetest reflection..."

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:43:29 -0400

“Always vote for principle (though you may vote alone) and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

- John Quincy Adams

The World's Worst Voting System

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:43:08 -0400

The Issue: Deciding the winner of an election by who garnered 50% of the votes plus one more voter is a terrible system that often leads to the election of terrible government officials.

Call to Action: Whether at the local, state, or Federal level, force your duly elected representatives to switch to one of a number of better voting systems. I find the Hare System to be a particularly attractive one.
——
You may think that I am going to rail against the electoral college, but you’d be wrong. It’s not because the electoral college is perfect or that it is unimportant, it’s just that there is a far more important (and insidious) factor at play: 50% + 1. What do I mean by 50% + 1? It’s the voting system in which the winner is the person who received 50% of the votes plus one more vote. It’s the system that we use for virtually all of our major U.S. elections.

There are many different voting systems, and statisticians cannot agree on which is the best one. They all have strengths, but they all have weaknesses as well. However, the one thing they ALL agree on is that 50% + 1 is the worst. Let me briefly illustrate with an example from a modern Presidential race.

In 2000, people had the option to vote for two major candidates - George Bush and Al Gore. However, there was another candidate who, although not part of the two major U.S. political parties, was a candidate who you could have voted for - Ralph Nader.

Many liberals wanted to vote for Ralph Nader. However, many of them feared that he could not garner the requisite number of votes to win the Presidency; thus casting a vote for him rather than Al Gore would be a wasted vote and could lead to the election of George Bush. So most liberals voted for Gore rather than Nader. This is what 50% + 1 gets you - people NOT voting for the person they actually want because they are trying to prevent a hated candidate (Bush, in this example) from winning. Does this sound like the type of voting behavior we want to be motivating? F#*k no.

To further illustrate my point, here’s a quote from actor Richard Gere, a man who rescued a hooker:
I’m voting for Gore because the other is unthinkable. I’ve always liked Ralph Nader and would like to see a real third party, but the thought of George Bush as president is unthinkable.

“Alright smart guy, then what voting system do you propose we use,” your probably whispering to yourself as you read this in your bubble bath. Well, frankly, anything is better than 50% + 1, but I will throw one particularly great option out there (remembering that all systems have their flaws).

I won’t go into all of the boring details, but it’s called the Hare system of single transferable vote. I know, makes me wet too.

In its simplest form (and using my previous example), you get two votes. You vote for the person you really want (Nader) and the person you’ll settle for (Gore) if it turns out your first selection can’t win. This way, people aren’t forced to vote for the person they feel is “electable.” Instead, they can vote for the candidate they actually want, secure in the knowledge that if, as the votes add up, their first choice cannot win, then their second choice will kick in.

And it doesn’t matter if you’re a fan of Gore, Nader, or neither, this system works regardless of party (Ron Paul first, then John McCain; Teddy Roosevelt first, then William H. Taft) because it lets you vote for who you actually want to win.

What a novel concept.

"We have prepared the path for the child instead of the child for the path."

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:31:12 -0400

“We have prepared the path for the child instead of the child for the path.”

- Tim Elmore, author and lecturer specializing in the development of young adults

"He who makes his bed is a modern-day Sisyphus."

Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:58:02 -0400

“He who makes his bed is a modern-day Sisyphus.”

- A One Man Dam

If You Make Your Bed You're no Better than Sisyphus

Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:57:00 -0400

The Issue: Making the bed is literally a worthless act that accomplishes nothing and makes everybody miserable doing it.

Call to Action: Isn’t it obvious? Stop making the bed.

——

In Greek mythology Sisyphus was a king punished by the gods by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever.

Little do you know, but we all (well, you all) are modern-day Sisyphuses (or is it Sisyphae?). Why? Because you make your beds every day. How do I equate the two? If it’s not apparent already, let me elaborate.

Every day Sisyphus would roll that bolder of his up a hill even though he knew full well that it would roll back down every single time. And every day you make your bed, knowing you will get back into it that very same day and mess up the covers - only to wake up the next day and start the process all over again.

“But wait a second, you sexy son of a bitch,” you’re probably saying to yourself. “That means virtually every chore I do is a Sisyphean act. Are you saying I shouldn’t sweep my floor, wash my dishes, or lock my doors?”

Of course not. Sweeping your floor makes for a healthier living environment, washing your dishes results in not only a healthier eating experience but also a cleaner one because you are discarding physical food remains from previous meals, and locking your doors makes you safer. Making your bed is neither healthier, cleaner, nor safer.

It is a simply a reconfiguration of sheets, blankets, comforters, and pillows. The only thing that can be said for this sombnatory reorganization is that it’s neater. But who gives a sh*t?! It’s in your bedroom. If you are straightening up your living room, dining room, or family room, I get it. Those are areas of the home where you entertain guests. So of course it makes sense for them to look neat & tidy. But this is your bedroom for god’s sake! The only person who sees it is you (and possibly the strangers you bring home every weekend, you slut).

So please, let’s all stop winking in the dark. There is absolutely no reason to make your bed but for a few times each year. As I said - it isn’t healthier, it isn’t cleaner, it isn’t safer, and you’re the only one who will ever see it.

Modern Parents - Selfish and Destructive

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:10:58 -0400

The Issue: For over 25 years parents have become selfish to such an extent that they are raising children who grow up to be incomplete adults. I call these people “Modern Parents.”

Call to Action: If you are a Modern Parent - stop. Read this, understand the implications of your actions, and stop. If you are an old-school mom or dad, then you need to speak out. Let’s create a culture that mocks and does not tolerate Modern Parenting.

—-

Modern Parenting is a scourge upon our society that creates children who become adults who are overly sensitive to criticism and overly confident in their abilities, which leads to them being woefully under qualified when it comes to … well, almost everything.

But rather than focus in the deliterious effects of Modern Parenting, I want to briefly explore why Modern Parents are the way they are. First, let’s define them via some examples of things they do that are unique to their breed. Modern Parents:

Praise their child for everything he does, even if the accomplishment is minor, inadequate, or incorrect.
See the value in participation awards.
Always take their child’s side over the teacher’s.
Do not allow their child to be cut from sports teams.
Childproof every conceivable aspect of their home.

In short, they do not allow their child to experience pain (physical or emotional).

Now at first, the obvious question is “how does any of this signify selfishness on the part of Modern Parents?”. Praising your child, unconditionally supporting your child, and protecting your child seem to be among the most selfless acts one can imagine, right?

The key to discovering their true selfishness is to dig a level deeper and ask what is actually motivating Modern Parents to act this way. Let me break it down with an all-too-real scenario:

Child does poorly on a test » teacher gives child a failing grade » child feels bad » parents feel bad » PARENTS DO NOT WANT TO FEEL BAD » parents confront teacher » teacher amends grade to passing » child feels better » PARENTS FEEL BETTER » child learns nothing and sees no need to improve

So you see, what looked like parents selflessly coming to the aid of their child, was in fact them seeking to make themselves feel better and, in the process, they are creating a wholly dependent child whose natural learning process and ability to accept and process feedback were all short circuited.

And this is a pattern that you will see repeated again and again by Modern Parents. No problem is too small or pain too slight that they won’t fiercely protect their child because they feel their child’s pain, and they don’t like feeling pain. So Modern Parents will selfishly fight their child’s battles and will not let him experience life. The result is an empty husk of a human being who has little drive, few skills, and no respect for authority, yet all the confidence in the world.

Be afraid, be very afraid.