Parenting Skills

I realize that many of you probably thought I was dead, and that this blog was extinct...but not so. Yeah, nearly two years have passed. (1 year, 11 months, 5 days (or 704 days), to be exact.)

A lot has happened since I last posted, and much that has kept me from posting. I will simply say this: Life happens.

Today, standing at the counter at the local bookseller, though, ignited me sufficiently to log right in and speak my mind.

I was reading before the age of two, thanks in part to the efforts of my school-teacher mother and father; due also to the prompting, support, and encouragement of my grandparents. And by reading, I mean "reading"--not just STOP signs, but the comics and articles in the newspaper aloud to my grandfather. I love to read. I take a book wherever I go. Reading, to me, is truly an essential. I have also been blessed that all my Horde love to read and read voraciously. I have not had to do much in the way of pushing them to read; they have done it largely on their own.

In addition to my parents, I have grandparents that were teachers, cousins that are teachers, aunts that are teachers. A long line of book lovers and intense readers.

This is my background. This is from whence I come. I am grateful for all of these people in my life and for what they have given me and shared with me.

As I walked into the store, I was practically knocked over by a 11- or 12-year-old trying to get into the store. Normally this would set me off in a "get off my lawn you whippersnapper"-type of internal temper tantrum. Seeing a young man this anxious to get into a bookstore, however, quells that anger.

I did my quick shopping and, as I said, was standing at the counter chatting with the clerk as she rang up my purchases (three of Terry Pratchett's books I'd been meaning to pick up for a long time and today seemed the time, may he R.I.P. But that's another discussion.).

And then I heard this:  A voice dripping with sarcasm and scorn. A mother, her face right in her son's face. Her son, the aforementioned young man, holding a book and looking like he had just had his earth shattered, his foundation broken, and the love of his life murdered in front of his eyes.

 Yeah, because you just loooooooove to read soooooooooooo much, don't you, now?!? 

It was loud enough that most of the front of the store turned to look at the pair. I watched as the boy turned, dejected, and slunk with his tail between his legs to set the book down and walk back to his mother's side. While she continued to peruse the glamor magazines, that is. (And believe me, no amount of printed glamor hints would have helped this woman. Neither externally nor, it seems, internally.)

I can understand not being able to afford buying a book, or a magazine, or some such. I can understand telling your child you cannot afford it and promising to get it from the library.

But mocking and deriding your child's desire to read and actually telling your child how much he should hate books?!?

Parenting skills? Hardly. I would call it close to parental tyranny.


I have heard it said before that, perhaps, people should be required to take classes and obtain a license before rearing children. I have typically laughed that off, or at least, dismissed it largely as histrionics.

Not after today. Certainly not after today.

Simply Harry Potter

OK. I know that in my last post I may have indirectly heaped trash on the name of J.K. Rowling.

I swear I heard gasping, because there are so many for whom reading Rowling is nigh-unto worship.

That's why I have been reluctant to admit to you all that in the past nine days I re-read all seven Harry Potter novels. Yep. The entire series. Started on June 7 and ended last night.

It was an enjoyable little jaunt.

I am not going to take back my scorn, however.

And I am going to offend some people.

Yeah, I hear you saying that at least she's published. That people know who she is and who am I to criticize her. I understand all that.

I will admit the books are a somewhat pleasant diversion. But they are just that. There is no deeper meaning to them, although I am sure that the typical liberal-arts loving English professor could deconstruct them and find hidden meaning galore, if not The True Meaning Of Life. (Yes, capitalized even.) I tried last night as I was finishing up The Deathly Hallows. Surely there's a message there about learning the truth about your heroes, some warning to children not to look up to or trust adults, because there's always some hidden evil in their background. That was as close as I got, and if I am right -- if that was intended -- well then, J.K. Rowling should be ashamed of herself.

But see, I am of the opinion -- the STRONG opinion that these books are not children's books. I do not care what kind of marketing strategy or philosophy involved, these are not children's books. In fact, I am ready to argue that allowing a child to read some of these books may be akin to child abuse, or at least indifference to the child's mental/emotional welfare and well-being.

We will not discuss the movies, because I gave up caring after the second one.

But I remember being in a grocery store years ago and watching in disgusted amazement as a three-year-old child pointed at a Harry Potter balloon and called out "Harry Potter! Harry Potter!"

A three-year-old child has NO business knowing who Harry Potter is.

And I am not sure that anyone under the age of mid-teens should know either. My teenager has not read them yet, and has not suffered any ill effects. She may in fact be able to live without reading them; the jury is still out on that one, though. Some sudden attack of fatal lackofpotteritis may yet prove to be her undoing.

Do not get me wrong: I am not going to make the argument of witchcraft and sorcery being peddled to our young. Others have made this argument, that is their prerogative. My thinking? They are fantasy novels. Not reality. Heck, outside of my spiritual endeavors, I spend most of my life in a fantasy world. [Aside: What? You think lawyers are sane individuals fully functioning in reality? I beg to differ.] I cannot take too much umbrage with this point. After all, Gandalf did magic. So did Willy Wonka.

No, I have different issues with Ms. Rowling's works. First and foremost, there is very little pure good represented in the books. Pure evil? Sure, it is everywhere; it saturates her little universe and it pours off the page. But pure good? I challenge you to point to ten major characters that are examples of pure, unadulterated, unquestioned goodness in the novels. No fair using animals: Hedwig and the owls do not count. Neither does Fawkes. I'll start the list, though these should probably be qualified as supporting cast:
1. Hagrid. Hagrid is an innocent and I am hardpressed to remember any specifically bad intentional act. The other characters treat Hagrid with pity, in part because he just doesn't seem as smart as they are.
2. Arthur and Molly Weasley. Again, innocents without any memorable bad intentional act. Again, well-meaning, but portrayed as slightly pitiable or less-intelligent. In fact, I could probably lump Bill and perhaps Charlie Weasley in here as well, but they are even more minor characters than their parents and, as such, perhaps do not warrant inclusion in the discussion at all.
3. Luna Lovejoy. Possibly. Her name just came to me; I will have to reserve judgment unless and until I can remember any specifics. But here again, an innocent that everyone considers to be slightly off-kilter or insane (or stupid).
4. Professor Minerva McGonagall. Again, she just came to me. I will have to think on her. She may be an exception to this list, as she is strong and intelligent.
5. Neville Longbottom. Another innocent. Another slightly off-kilter, slightly less-intelligent member of the cast.

See a trend? The only arguably purely good characters in the books are those that are innocent, naive, and possibly not intelligent. That's a nice portrayal; nice message to send to kids. "Hey, son! Why can't you act more like Neville Longbottom, eh?"

No, the main protaganists -- and by this I mean Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Dumbledore -- none of these are as unequivocally good as Voldemort is unequivocally evil. The Dark Lord has no direct counterpart. Dumbledore has a dark side and has done bad things. Harry and Ron waffle back and forth; they are not examples of pure good. Harry's soul is certainly not as lily-white as Voldemort's soul is midnight-black.

After the whole "peddling-these-books-to-kids" issue, this is my main beef with the books. There is pure good in this world. There is also pure evil. If you are going to acquaint readers with evil, especially if you are going to market to children and acquaint impressionable children with the concept of pure evil, then you better darn well be willing and prepared to acquaint them with the concept of pure good.

Plus, I simply cannot accept these as "great" literature. They are pleasant distractions. They cannot -- no matter how loud the groundlings scream -- compare to Shakespeare. Dickens. Twain. Rand. Do not try and argue; one hundred years from now, two hundred? Will Harry Potter be remembered? Will he be taught in AP English classes? Who's to say? Perhaps our standards are indeed that low. They're already suggested reading in elementary school. [Aside: We actually considered a private school for our oldest when she was ready to start school. The fact that the classrooms displayed posters of Harry Potter and Star Wars actually helped convince us to homeschool. Yes, even with a Star Wars-nerd father. There has to be a line in Education. That is a rant for another day, though.] I hope our standards -- not just as Americans, but as a civilization as a whole -- are not this low; I truly hope not. If she is our day's Shakespeare, we may as well simply throw in the towel.

I hear you saying that Shakespeare wrote to entertain, to satisfy the groundlings. Yes, but he did so with style, skill, and art. While Rowling uses magic as a subject, there is little or no magic in her words. Want to argue? Give me a passage with as much feeling and meaning as these:

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

The Bard distills the essence of what makes up a man: the inherent goodness. And he does so with skill, art, and brevity. In the approximately 3,000 pages of the series, she cannot make Harry -- or, truly, any character -- fit this profile, let alone describe anything with this manner of magnificent prose.

I have actually read a review saying, "This [the fact that the characters, good and evil, are developed in such a way that they are, well, not simply good or evil] is perhaps Rowling's greatest achievement in the book. While the series can be described as an epic tale between good and evil, the individuals involved are not so easily defined." This is said as PRAISE of the books. [Aside: what adds a twist to this review was that it came from socialistworker.org. And yes, it was a random search; I just happened across it. In fact, now that I think about it, there's a whole host of blog entries on the fact that self-proclaimed socialists thrill over the blurring of the lines between good and evil. But I will leave that for another day. I do not want to discuss politics right now.] Sure... it may be an epic tale between good and evil, but it is one without a heck of a lot of real good shining out.

In these dark times, do we not deserve to treat ourselves to a little real good now and then?

And do not our children also deserve it? In fact, is it possible that they deserve it even more?

I know, it's a work of fiction. Why am I getting so riled up?

In part because it is a work of fiction. It is not literature.

Rowling's books surely cannot be part of the works of the Ages. If they are, well, I guess we deserve what we get.

Quote of the Day -- June 10, 2009

Seems, madam! Nay, it is; I know not ‘seems.’
’Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forc’d breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected haviour of the visage,
Together with all forms, modes, shows of grief,
That can denote me truly; these indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play:
But I have that within which passeth show;
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene ii.

And to think that at one point in my life I thought this was detestable drivel. As I think I have stated here before, I will be forever grateful to a High School teacher, and later two Professors, that instilled in me a love for Shakespeare.

Now, I cannot understand how anyone cannot read this and not say, "wow."

I am trying to instill in my own children a love of Shakespeare early in their lives. It seems to be working, too. I am grateful and hopeful; I see so many others, even within my own extended family (nieces, nephews, cousins) who simply turn up their nose at Shakespeare but drool over the latest from JK Rowling, Danielle Steele, or [shudder] Nora Roberts Stephenie Meyer. And that's when they can even be bothered to pick up a book at all.

Thank you, public education. Well done. Yet another reason to Home School.

Needless to say, when I read or hear something like this passage, I am embarrassed to even pick up a pen to put to paper. Oh that my best could someday equal The Bard's worst.

Finally, I wonder: am I the only one that reads this (and reads it aloud) for fun? I hope not.

OK. I am a nerd.

Stimulus Package Explained!

I received this from my buddy in Salt Lake City today, forwarded from his e-mail. I wish I knew the original author, or knew to whom to attribute this fine explanation of the so-called Stimulus package.

Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics professor and says, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?"

The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend progject, I'll be glad to explain it to you." The student agreed.

At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's house. The professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can." The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it." The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.

The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.

The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?" The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.

The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough. However, after the sixth trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad.

The student finally replied, "All we are doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all you will really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have been truly productive action!"

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, "Congratulations! You now understand the stimulus bill."

Trust Me. I Talk Good.

As anyone who knows me well will tell you, there is little else that raises my hackles like really bad grammar, poor spelling, and inaccurate puncutation. Both of these things send my proofreading brain spinning.

I almost fell off the bus today because of this problem.

There is a new business in town. Apparently, it is one of these outfits that performs commercial, albeit medical-type, scans for early warning of cancer, heart disease, and the like. Obviously, in this economy, they could be considered a luxury expenditure, and have therefore increased their advertising presence accordingly.

Well... I am relatively certain that this was not the kind of advertising effect they wanted.

You see, as I was sitting on the bus this morning, my eyes wandered up to the advertising along the space between the window and roof of the bus. Here, right in front of me, was an advertisement for this body-scan outfit. (Aside: Perhaps I am being too charitable in not printing their name. Maybe, just maybe, I need the extra points that charity could get me. Or maybe I am simply weak. Whatever it is, forgive me, because I am going to withhold the name. But I do believe it is a national company; if you see the same kind of advertising, please let me know.)

I quickly read the new advertisement. Then the mental nails scratched down the chalkboard in my brain. I re-read it to make sure I had not misunderstood. Then I read it a third time in utter disbelief. Surely they did not mean....

Here's what I saw (alas, if only I'd had a camera with me)--it was an ad for a lung scan, $299.00 if I remember correctly, and the text was as follows:

Breathe easier.
Get screened.
Their is a good chance it will save your life.

Excuse me? What?!

You're serious? A professional, likely multi-state, medically-related company does not have the sense to proofread their advertising? I do not know whether to hope they had an outside advertising company help them or not. Which is worse: to make this mistake in-house and not catch it? or to hire someone so inept as to make this mistake and then not catch the mistake in the draft?

Plain and simple: would you trust these people too to tell you weather whether you had cancerous cells in you're your lungs?

Really now, would you?

And actually, the second thought I had was even worse: how many people read that advertisement every day and see nothing wrong with it? Truthfully, is that not the actual state of society? of public education? or am I being too cynical?

This entire event has actually caused a slight headache this morning. Sharp pains at the base of my skull.

I'm going to go lie down for awhile, I believe.

Lie, I said. Not lay. Their There is a difference, you know.

NEA's ABCs

Last week I discussed the National Education Association's annual declaration of deals with the devil positions and resolutions. At the time, I mentioned that the NEA has their own "A-B-C-Ds."

That got me thinking.

I went through their 2008 list of resolutions and have been able to cull out an almost-complete representative list of their ABCs.

Now, I should point out up front that on some of these items, I do not necessarily disagree with the stance in general. Where I have a problem is that none of these things need to be taught to our Elementary age students in school. With me it all comes back to "the 3 Rs." Should not teachers and educators be more focused on teaching the basics rather than pushing "social" agendas? These resolutions become the authorized issues for which NEA members can lobby Congress and state legislatures.

Aside: I had difficulty with a few of these and I'll admit to having to stretch for a couple of these. All in all, though, I'm happy with what's here.

Drop me a post in the Comments if you have any suggested changes. If you want to read the resolutions for yourself, here is the link. Be forewarned: it's a hefty document.

A is for Abortion
B is for Birth control
C is for Care of the mentally ill
D is for Diversity
E is for Equal rights amendment
F is for Firearm control
G is for Global warming
H is for Homosexual agenda
I is for International courts
J is for Judgment over dispensing prescribed medications
K is for Kindergarten, pre-school, and pre-pre-school (mandatory)
L is for Land use and preservation
M is for Medicare
N is for National energy policy
O is for One world government
P is for Progressive socialism
Q is for Qur'an=good; Bible=bad
R is for Reparations for descendants of slavery
S is for State-licensed, state-approved homeschooling
T is for Traffic safety
U is for Unionization
V is for Verifiable freeze of nuclear weapons
W is for Washington, DC statehood
X is for X-rated sex education
Y is for Youth education regarding world hunger
Z is for Zero tolerance for alternative schooling

(One last aside: 'progressive socialism' may be somewhat redundant, but I hope you'll forgive me.)

This is why I Homeschool

There are a lot of reasons why my LW and I decided to Homeschool the Horde.

Incurring additional debt by purchasing curricula was not one of them.

Having a cluttered home was not one of them.

Forcing my LW to have no eight hours a day, nine months "down-time" a year was not one of them.

But every year, the National Education Association reminds me of a long, long list of reasons. They just did it again.

Here is the original article.

Aside: for those who are unaware, the NEA is the largest teachers union in the USA. They are the 900-pound gorilla that sits in judgment upon all who dare question so-called Public Education. (And believe me, some of them really ARE 900-pound gorillas. But I digress.)

A few weeks ago, the NEA held their annual national convention. Every year as part of this convention they spend time passing resolutions, as well as preparing their platform of ideals and official policies. One would assume that these resolutions, ideals, and policies dealt with public education and the education of our children.

One would be so wrong as to not be able to even see the Light of correctness from where one stood.

The first line of the article gives you a pretty good idea of the attendees' attitudes: "Delegates sported buttons with provocative slogans such as 'Gay marriage causes Global Warming only because we are so hot!,' 'Hate is not a family value,' 'The "Christian Right" is neither' and 'Gay Rights are civil rights.'"

Yep.

It all went downhill from there.

You see, the NEA truly desires diversity. Which one would assume to be a good thing, except when you consider that all "diversity" means is "pro-homosexual." That's it. Sexual orientation and so-called "gender identification" are now discussions for pre-schoolers.

Thats right, I said pre-schoolers. Fingerpaints, graham crackers, and why Billy has two daddies.

"But wait!" I hear you say. "These issues are related to education."

Oh really? It's necessary to teach my children about homosexuality before they can read?

What would Mr. Chips say?

Need more convincing? How about supporting statehood for the District of Columbia? Urging support for and ratification of the International Criminal Court Treaty? Gun control? How about "the right to reproductive freedom," and "the use of nonsexist language"?

Or this little gem from the article: "The NEA even urges its affiliates to work for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment." The article's author points out that the "ERA was declared dead by the U.S. Supreme Court 26 years ago."

Not that all the above-described Socialist sputum and progressive pap does not offend me. Far from it. But the position I take as a personal attack on my freedoms is the vitriolic opposition the NEA puts forth against ANY form of competition posed toward public schools.

Vouchers? Racist.

Tax credits? Nope.

Homeschoolers? Uneducated hicks with no training teaching their own children? No freakin' way. (You never know, after all, the kinds of things they may be teaching their children. They may even use [gasp] THE BIBLE as a textbook!)

The NEA opposes homeschooling unless children are taught by state-licensed teachers using a state-approved curriculum. The NEA wants to bar homeschooled students from participating in any extracurricular activities in public schools even though their parents pay school taxes.

That's right, boys and girls. A parent no longer has the capacity to know what is best for their child/children unless they are trained by the state Big Brother The State.

It doesn't stop there, either.

The NEA wants every child, regardless of age, to have “direct and confidential access, without notification to parents, to comprehensive health education. That would include things such as learning how to use condoms for premarital sex, as well as social and psychological programs and services.”

The NEA wants public schools to take over the physical and mental care of students through school clinics that provide services, diagnosis, treatment, family-planning counseling, and access to birth control methods “with instruction in their use.” Family planning clinics are called on to “provide intensive counseling.”

Did you catch the key phrases? "without notification to parents" and "regardless of age."

What is wrong with these people? Why and how are they getting away with espousing and teaching our children things with which, honestly, the majority of American citizens disagree.

What's wrong with them? That's an entire blog entry in itself. (Aside: briefly put, I would not argue with mental illness. I would also not argue with Evil. (and yes, that's "Evil" with a capital "E.")) Why and how are they doing it? Putting aside the "what's wrong" question for a moment, I think they have been given free reign for so long that they have completely lost sight of what they are about.

Remember the "3 R's"? Reading, Writing, 'Rithmetic? They are no more.

Abortion, Birth Control, and Diversity are the new "A-B-C-D's."

When is society going to wake up and take our children back? They are OUR children after all, not The State's. When will it be too late?

I suspect we are getting close to the tipping point right now.

Look, I don't really care whether you agree with Homeschooling or not. I recognize your right to choose how to educate your child. But please whatever you choose, choose well. And know what it is you're choosing. Don't just accept it simply because accepting it is simple. In essence, it goes to your children's Liberty.

Remember: once something is put into these empty little vessels, it is very hard--if not impossible--to get that something out again.

And believe me, the other side knows that.

That's what they are counting on to survive.