Have you seen those nanny shows on tv? You know the ones, Nanny 911 (which I think has been cancelled) and Super Nanny. I find them a hoot. Every time I watch them I can't believe that (supposedly) intelligent people let the whole country see that they're totally incompetent parents. I can't believe the amount of child spoiling going on in our society. There are parents out there who are total pushovers with their kids, parents who are even afraid of their own children. It's sickening.
Even before the nanny shows debuted there were plenty of baby whipped parents on tv. A few years ago there was a spate of "I'm Scared of my Child" episodes on Maury Povich's talk show. They were shocking. They showed kids as young as seven literally ruling the roost, hitting their parents to keep them in line, and throwing outrageous tantrums to get their way. But what was really disgusting were the parents, all mothers, crying helplessly and pleading with their monsters to behave. YOU DON'T ASK CHILDREN TO BEHAVE, YOU MAKE THEM!!! I didn't understand why those moms didn't get it. And, unfortunately, there was more.
Another Maury Povich show discussed obese children. There was a 4-year-old boy on the show who was extremely overweight, and guess what his parents said? If they tried to limit the amount of food the child ate he'd throw a tantrum, so they let the kid stuff himself. I was dumbfounded. Those parents were risking their son's health, even his life, because they didn't want to deal with his tantrums! And, sadly, they weren't the only parents doing that. The father of a 100lb 2-year-old let the girl eat a whole bag of hot dogs for lunch because, he claimed, he loved her too much to say no. So another child's health and life were put in jepodary by a "loving" parent. And the sad parade of parental incompetence didn't end with Maury's show.
On an old episode of the news show 20/20 a mother let her preschooler make a total ass of her. The family was in the car, ready to leave home for the day, when the child insisted she needed a stuffed animal on the ride to day care. The mom got out of the car, went back into the house, and got a toy. The child whined that it wasn't the right one, so the mom went and got another toy. That one wasn't right, either. The mom got yet another toy; it, too, wasn't right. Back and forth the mom went for what seemed like forever. It never occurred to this supposedly intelligent woman to tell her daughter "No!" and then let her scream all the way to day care. My mom, like most moms of her generation, would've had no problem doing that. But today's parents act like not giving in to their kids' every demand is a crime. How did we come to this?
I think the astronomical increase in two income families is largely to blame. Many working parents feel a great deal of guilt leaving their kids in substitute care. They try to assuage that guilt by spending "quality time" with their children, meaning the little darlings are horribly indulged so they'll like mom and dad. Showering their kids with everything they ask for, and even things they don't, helps working parents further justify their employment--they "have" to work so they can get so much for the kids. So parents indulge their children to assuage their guilt, thus making the kids ever more demanding, which leads to more indulging, this time to keep the kids quiet. It becomes a viscious cycle. But there's more.
Working parent guilt also makes many of today's parents uncomfortable about being the boss in their families. The collapse of traditional values in America has led to widespread disrespect for parental authority, even among parents. Many of them are indecently willing to give up huge chunks of their authority over their children in exchange for less responsibility for them. That responsibility is given to day care centers and schools. Combine this parental abdication with the obsession with children's self-esteem and "positive" discipline, and you have the perfect spoiled brat recipe.
How do we get out of this mess? Return to traditional values! As I stated above, parents of my mom's generation had no trouble telling their kids no. They and their children knew who was in charge (hint: it wasn't the kids). Today's parents need to get the same confidence in their authority. It's a vital prerequisite to teaching children character. If kids learn good character in childhood they'll be blessings to society as adults. It's the parents' job to make sure that happens. It's a daunting task. No wimps, weaklings, or wussies need apply!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Let's Legalize Polygamy
I support polygamy. I probably wouldn't practice it myself but I believe it should be legal for anyone who wishes to marry that way. There, I said it. This may seem like a strange thing to advocate on a blog dedicated to family values, but here me out.
Most people, at least most Westerners, have a visceral dislike of polygamy. Through media reports and feminist propaganda we've come to regard polygamy as a singularly destructive force, fundamentally oppressive to women. While millions in our country can fathom two men or two women marrying, the thought of one man having two or more wives is just repugnant. It shouldn't be that way.
Polygamy has a long and venerable history. It has been practiced on all continents, among all races, and in all religions. We in the Judeo-Christian West mistakenly believe that the Bible condemns plural marriage but that is not so. Most of the Old Testament Patriarchs, prophets, and kings had multiple wives with no reprimand from God. The Mosaic Law regulates polygamy but does not forbid it. True, the New Testament commands Church leaders to have only one wife, but that prohibition doesn't necessarily apply to the whole Christian community. Indeed, the very fact that Church leaders are allowed only one wife suggests that polygamy was common among first century Christians. After all, why make the "one wife" rule if monogamy was the sole form of Christian marriage?
Devout Jews, Christians, and others who draw their morality from the Bible can support plural marriage in good conscience. It is not solely the practice of fundamentalist Mormons hell bent on suppressing women. Many non-Mormon women, as well as men, can and do enter into polgamy of their own free will, with the intention of creating loving marriages and strong families. Why should they be subjected to legal and/or moral sanction for a marriage that is heterosexual and of their own choosing?
Besides, our sanction against polygamy is profoundly hypocritical. We are a society that boasts of our sexual tolerance. We accept promiscuity as normal, even teaching it to our children. Pornography is a multibillion dollar business. Homosexuality is openly practiced. We tolerate a destructive "subpolygamy" where men procreate with multiple women with no legal or financial committment to them or their children. We wink at adultery and laugh at Hugh Hefner having three live in girlfriends, but God forbid he should have three wives!
God forbid that a man should bind himself to two or more women in a formal commitment, pledging to them love, loyalty, and support. God forbid that a man should be a father to their children, eagerly embracing the financial as well as emotional demands of that role. God forbid that two or more women should lovingly help each other in the mothering of their children. God forbid that a man and two or more women should commit themselves to creating a stable family unit where bedrock values such as love, responsibility, faith, and hard work are diligently taught to the next generation. God forbid!
It's time to rise above our knee jerk disdain for plural marriage. We must admit that we have to accept polygamy along with the other non-traditional families we're so quick to celebrate. It's all about diversity, right? And polygamy has at least the potential to give children a far more constructive upbringing than some of the other alternative families most of us have no problem with. In the end we can't have it both ways. If we reject polygamy then we must also stop watching The Girls Next Door. Honesty and common sense demand it.
Most people, at least most Westerners, have a visceral dislike of polygamy. Through media reports and feminist propaganda we've come to regard polygamy as a singularly destructive force, fundamentally oppressive to women. While millions in our country can fathom two men or two women marrying, the thought of one man having two or more wives is just repugnant. It shouldn't be that way.
Polygamy has a long and venerable history. It has been practiced on all continents, among all races, and in all religions. We in the Judeo-Christian West mistakenly believe that the Bible condemns plural marriage but that is not so. Most of the Old Testament Patriarchs, prophets, and kings had multiple wives with no reprimand from God. The Mosaic Law regulates polygamy but does not forbid it. True, the New Testament commands Church leaders to have only one wife, but that prohibition doesn't necessarily apply to the whole Christian community. Indeed, the very fact that Church leaders are allowed only one wife suggests that polygamy was common among first century Christians. After all, why make the "one wife" rule if monogamy was the sole form of Christian marriage?
Devout Jews, Christians, and others who draw their morality from the Bible can support plural marriage in good conscience. It is not solely the practice of fundamentalist Mormons hell bent on suppressing women. Many non-Mormon women, as well as men, can and do enter into polgamy of their own free will, with the intention of creating loving marriages and strong families. Why should they be subjected to legal and/or moral sanction for a marriage that is heterosexual and of their own choosing?
Besides, our sanction against polygamy is profoundly hypocritical. We are a society that boasts of our sexual tolerance. We accept promiscuity as normal, even teaching it to our children. Pornography is a multibillion dollar business. Homosexuality is openly practiced. We tolerate a destructive "subpolygamy" where men procreate with multiple women with no legal or financial committment to them or their children. We wink at adultery and laugh at Hugh Hefner having three live in girlfriends, but God forbid he should have three wives!
God forbid that a man should bind himself to two or more women in a formal commitment, pledging to them love, loyalty, and support. God forbid that a man should be a father to their children, eagerly embracing the financial as well as emotional demands of that role. God forbid that two or more women should lovingly help each other in the mothering of their children. God forbid that a man and two or more women should commit themselves to creating a stable family unit where bedrock values such as love, responsibility, faith, and hard work are diligently taught to the next generation. God forbid!
It's time to rise above our knee jerk disdain for plural marriage. We must admit that we have to accept polygamy along with the other non-traditional families we're so quick to celebrate. It's all about diversity, right? And polygamy has at least the potential to give children a far more constructive upbringing than some of the other alternative families most of us have no problem with. In the end we can't have it both ways. If we reject polygamy then we must also stop watching The Girls Next Door. Honesty and common sense demand it.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Rest In Peace, Little Angels
I just read a news article on the 'net that makes me so mad I could kill. A father--I use that term very loosely--drowned his four babies to get revenge on his wife. Lam Luong, an Alabama shrimper, threw his children off a bridge after having an argument with his wife, Ngoc Phan. The article didn't say what the couple argued about but did mention that Luong had a cocaine problem.
I don't know what to say about this. I'm so sick and tired of filthy, cowardly, and downright evil "parents" murdering their own defenseless kids to solve their problems or strike back at each other. These people are the lowest of the low. They should be executed in the slowest, most painful way possible. And I mean that literally. To those of you who are squeamish about capital punishment, think of the terror the Luong children felt as they plunged 80 feet to their deaths. They were given the death penalty by their own father; he deserves no mercy.
I can't imagine what Ngoc Phan is going through right now. In one cruel instant her entire family was wiped out by the one person duty bound to protect them. Never again will Ngoc plan a birthday party, hear her children laughing, or feel their good night hugs. From now on the only time she'll see her babies is in photographs. As I said, I can't imagine what she's going through. If I were her I'd be out of my mind.
Lam Luong confessed to his crime and is facing four counts of capital murder. At least he didn't take the coward's way out and commit suicide the way so many of these killers do. But that should get him no mercy from the law. He should be executed immediately so he can stand before the Judge who really matters. The One who said it would be better to be thrown in the ocean with a milstone tied around your neck than harm one of His little ones. Lam Luong faces a justice more terrible than man's.
But his children are in a better place. They will never again know family strife, or crying, or pain. Goodbye Ryan, 3; Hannah, 2; Lindsey, 1 and Danny, 4 months. Rest in peace, little angels. I will cry for you.
I don't know what to say about this. I'm so sick and tired of filthy, cowardly, and downright evil "parents" murdering their own defenseless kids to solve their problems or strike back at each other. These people are the lowest of the low. They should be executed in the slowest, most painful way possible. And I mean that literally. To those of you who are squeamish about capital punishment, think of the terror the Luong children felt as they plunged 80 feet to their deaths. They were given the death penalty by their own father; he deserves no mercy.
I can't imagine what Ngoc Phan is going through right now. In one cruel instant her entire family was wiped out by the one person duty bound to protect them. Never again will Ngoc plan a birthday party, hear her children laughing, or feel their good night hugs. From now on the only time she'll see her babies is in photographs. As I said, I can't imagine what she's going through. If I were her I'd be out of my mind.
Lam Luong confessed to his crime and is facing four counts of capital murder. At least he didn't take the coward's way out and commit suicide the way so many of these killers do. But that should get him no mercy from the law. He should be executed immediately so he can stand before the Judge who really matters. The One who said it would be better to be thrown in the ocean with a milstone tied around your neck than harm one of His little ones. Lam Luong faces a justice more terrible than man's.
But his children are in a better place. They will never again know family strife, or crying, or pain. Goodbye Ryan, 3; Hannah, 2; Lindsey, 1 and Danny, 4 months. Rest in peace, little angels. I will cry for you.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Merry Christmas!
I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas and I pray that the new year will be blessed for all.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Christmas Shoes
This is one of the most touching Christmas songs I've ever heard. It's by the group NewSong, and if it doesn't make you cry you're not human.
I wanted to post a video to the song on one of my blogs and went to YouTube to find it. There were several different videos for the song, including the official one. I chose this version, which was made as a Film School project, because of the way it ends. That clinched it for me. When you see the ending you'll know why.
None of us has a guarantee that we or our families will be here next Christmas or even next week. I hope this video makes all of us hug our loved ones a little tighter now and always.
Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year!
Friday, December 7, 2007
The Simplest Game Of All
Whew! I can't believe it's time for Fun'n'Games Friday again. This time I'm actually in a gaming mood, but only a little bit. So I'm going to tell you about a game my family learned from one of my Mom's co-workers over 30 years ago. It's a very simple game. It requires no equipment, has no real rules, and can be played anywhere. It's called the tv game.
What's the tv game, you ask? Simple. It's a game where you have to guess the name of tv shows from the opposite of the words in the title. Did you get that? Let's see if I can clarify. In this game two or more people pick a tv show, tell the other person(s) the words that are the opposite of the words in the show's title and that person(s) has to guess the show. If the words in the title don't have exact opposites you can use words that are similar. Here's a simple example: Cottage. Can you guess which tv show that is? Right, House!
As you can see, "cottage" is similar to "house" rather than opposite to it. Here's another example: Spirit Shouter. Can you guess this one? Think hard. That's right! Ghost Whisperer. I could use both a similar and an opposite word for that show's title. And that's the gist of the tv game. Like I said, simple.
You can make "rules" to the tv game if you want. You might decide to do only dramas or comedies. You could also include the title of cd's or the names of bands in the game. It's strictly up to you how serious and involved you want this game to be. And because there's no equipment for this game except your brain it's great for road trips. My family and I have had tons of fun with the tv game. I'm sure you will, too.
What's the tv game, you ask? Simple. It's a game where you have to guess the name of tv shows from the opposite of the words in the title. Did you get that? Let's see if I can clarify. In this game two or more people pick a tv show, tell the other person(s) the words that are the opposite of the words in the show's title and that person(s) has to guess the show. If the words in the title don't have exact opposites you can use words that are similar. Here's a simple example: Cottage. Can you guess which tv show that is? Right, House!
As you can see, "cottage" is similar to "house" rather than opposite to it. Here's another example: Spirit Shouter. Can you guess this one? Think hard. That's right! Ghost Whisperer. I could use both a similar and an opposite word for that show's title. And that's the gist of the tv game. Like I said, simple.
You can make "rules" to the tv game if you want. You might decide to do only dramas or comedies. You could also include the title of cd's or the names of bands in the game. It's strictly up to you how serious and involved you want this game to be. And because there's no equipment for this game except your brain it's great for road trips. My family and I have had tons of fun with the tv game. I'm sure you will, too.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
To Tell Or Not To Tell
Well, it's that time again. Christmas is just around the corner and a lot of parents are facing the Santa question. Do they tell their children the truth about jolly St. Nick or not? 
I have mixed feelings about Santa Claus. Like most folks I believed in Santa as a child. I was never told the truth; I figured it out on my own. Slowly, over time, I realized that the Santa story didn't add up. By the time I was nine or ten I'd put two and two together and made peace with the fact that Santa was a pleasant fiction. I suffered no psychological damage from having been "lied" to by my parents and other adults for years. But I do understand how the dishonesty can be uncomfortable for a lot of people.
Many adults remember their belief in Santa as harmless fun and they want the same for their children. A happy fantasy, they reason, can be soothing and reassuring for children in an often dark and dangerous world. That's true, but today's children are often more wordly than those of the past and more likely to spot a hoax. Consequently it might be a good idea for parents to level with them from the beginning. But won't that take away the magic of Christmas? Not necessarily.
If you're religious, Christmas was never supposed to be about Santa Claus and his presents anyway. It's supposed to be about the birth of Christ. Teaching children the true reason for the season, sharing precious time with family and friends, and giving to those less fortunate are ways to experience the joy of Christmas without involving the Santa myth.
If you just can't get through the holiday without Santa, but don't want to tell your kids a fib, try telling them the story of the real St. Nicholas, on whom the Santa legend is based. The life of this man can serve as an inspiration for everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. You can make telling his story a family tradition, as telling the story of the first Christmas already is for many. Following St. Nicholas' example of loving children and the poor can motivate us to help others, bringing joy to them and to ourselves. And keeping us in the spirit of Christmas.
I don't want to sound like a moral relativist, but there's no right or wrong answer to the Santa question. Children aren't going to be harmed by believing in a pleasant myth for a few years. On the other hand, if you don't want to fib to your kids rest assured that not believing in Santa won't ruin the spirit of the season for them. Be careful, though, that your kids don't spill the beans to kids whose parents DO want them to believe in the man in the red suit.
Whatever decision you make about Santa be sure it jibes with your values as a family. Santa Claus IS Christmas to many people, but he doesn't have to be. Worshipping Christ, being with family, giving gifts and helping others are all ways of bringing Christmas joy to your children with or without Santa Claus. So go ahead. Tell your kids Santa's real, or tell them he's not. The magic of the season will be there either way.
I have mixed feelings about Santa Claus. Like most folks I believed in Santa as a child. I was never told the truth; I figured it out on my own. Slowly, over time, I realized that the Santa story didn't add up. By the time I was nine or ten I'd put two and two together and made peace with the fact that Santa was a pleasant fiction. I suffered no psychological damage from having been "lied" to by my parents and other adults for years. But I do understand how the dishonesty can be uncomfortable for a lot of people.
Many adults remember their belief in Santa as harmless fun and they want the same for their children. A happy fantasy, they reason, can be soothing and reassuring for children in an often dark and dangerous world. That's true, but today's children are often more wordly than those of the past and more likely to spot a hoax. Consequently it might be a good idea for parents to level with them from the beginning. But won't that take away the magic of Christmas? Not necessarily.
If you're religious, Christmas was never supposed to be about Santa Claus and his presents anyway. It's supposed to be about the birth of Christ. Teaching children the true reason for the season, sharing precious time with family and friends, and giving to those less fortunate are ways to experience the joy of Christmas without involving the Santa myth.
If you just can't get through the holiday without Santa, but don't want to tell your kids a fib, try telling them the story of the real St. Nicholas, on whom the Santa legend is based. The life of this man can serve as an inspiration for everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. You can make telling his story a family tradition, as telling the story of the first Christmas already is for many. Following St. Nicholas' example of loving children and the poor can motivate us to help others, bringing joy to them and to ourselves. And keeping us in the spirit of Christmas.
I don't want to sound like a moral relativist, but there's no right or wrong answer to the Santa question. Children aren't going to be harmed by believing in a pleasant myth for a few years. On the other hand, if you don't want to fib to your kids rest assured that not believing in Santa won't ruin the spirit of the season for them. Be careful, though, that your kids don't spill the beans to kids whose parents DO want them to believe in the man in the red suit.
Whatever decision you make about Santa be sure it jibes with your values as a family. Santa Claus IS Christmas to many people, but he doesn't have to be. Worshipping Christ, being with family, giving gifts and helping others are all ways of bringing Christmas joy to your children with or without Santa Claus. So go ahead. Tell your kids Santa's real, or tell them he's not. The magic of the season will be there either way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
