This post is a continuation of my previous post. I probably won't have time to finish my Friday story tonight, but I would like to write a little bit before going to bed.
So, after we got on the boat, Peter calmed down a bit. In fact, he was quite excited to be on a boat, and he dragged me by the hand to the top deck of the boat ( Ruth stayed below deck with Michael - she tends to get sea-sick on boats ). As we sat there on the to deck, we had one of those little moments that makes all the stress of parenthood worth it. We had a great view of both the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge from the our seats, and we could also see a bunch of sailboats. Peter drank it all in and his little eyes lit up. He kept pointing at stuff and saying things like "I see sailboat Daddy!" and "giant red bridge Daddy!" ( That's what he calls the Golden Gate Bridge - we had seen it up close on Monday ). Now that he's finally started to talk a bit, I just love to hear his cute little voice. I need to cherish every little moment like that. He's still my baby boy, but I know he won't be a baby forever.
So, the boat trip went rather well, but things got a little bit tougher once we got on the island. It soon became clear that our options were going to be a bit limited by the boys. I was really interested in a guided tour about Alcatraz escapes ( given by a former FBI agent who once swam from Alcatraz to San Francisco ), but we had to quit that tour after about 5 minutes because Peter needed to go potty just as the tour group was leaving to head to another location. We finally decided to make our way up to the prison building to do the main tour. The boys were real troopers on that walk. We were told it was a 130 foot climb from the dock to the main prison building, but the boys made it without a problem ( I was VERY thankful I didn't have to carry Peter up the hill ). The tour was a self-guided one. You were given headphones and an audio device when you got in ( a very low-tech iPod-type thingy ). There were about 20 chapters on the audio thingy. The audio device would tell you where to go and tell a story about each each location. You could start and stop the audio recording whenever you wanted, which meant you could do the tour at your own pace. This all seemed kinda promising, because it meant we could take a break from the tour whenever the boys acted up. Unfortunately the boys acted up quite a bit. At times, it seemed like they were re-enacting a prison riot. It's not really a bad thing for boys to fight and wrestle a bit ( As Ruth's Dad told us "Don't worry about the boys fighting. You should only worry if they don't fight each other. If two brothers close in age don't fight each other, then something's wrong.". In other words, "Boys will be boys", and they were certainly being boys that day. ), but it made it tough to concentrate on the tour when the boys were constantly wrestling at my feet, chasing each other, and pulling each other down. They really weren't fighting in a malicious way. I think they were just bored by the whole tour and were looking for something more fun to do. They had spent much of the past week watching a DVD called "Scooby Doo and the Goblin King". We had brought a portable DVD player and about 20 DVDs on the trip ( to keep the boys entertained on the plane and in the evenings ), but it seemed like they only wanted to watch the Goblin King. There's a comical scene in the Goblin King where two guard fight each other, and it seemed like the boys were trying to re-enact that scene. So it was more of a giggling fight than a screaming fight, but it was still rather distracting, and I was still worried that they were going to hurt themselves ( considering that there were steel bars all over the place ). Ruth was also still feeling a bit sea-sick, so after a while she needed to sit down, and I was doing the tour all on my own with the two boys. After doing the tour with the boys for about 20 minutes I realized that I was never going to be able to take many pictures ( because I had to keep my eyes on the boys ). I knew that Ruth would be disappointed if we didn't get a a lot of good pictures, so I dropped he boys off with Ruth, and started to do the tour on my own. After a few minutes a I started to worry that Ruth might be having a hard time with the boys ( and her sea-sickness ), so I made my way quickly around the whole prison and took every picture I could. By that time I was only halfway through the audio tour, but I decided to give up and head back to Ruth and the boys. When I got back to where I had left them, I found they were no longer there. Michael had apparently needed to go potty really bad, so Ruth had left the tour location completely to go to the bathroom just outside the prison building. Eventually, I got in touch with Ruth by phone and we met in the prison gift shop.
And that was about it for our Alcatraz tour. We headed back down to get the boat back to San Fran. By the time we got on the boat it was 2:30, but it really didn't seem like we had done much. Don't get me wrong - we had a lot of fun and saw a lot of cool stuff, but we didn't do quite as much as we thought we would do. Still, all in all, it was a good time.
Well, I see it's bedtime for me again, so I'll have to continue this story later. Stay tuned for the next episode, which I'll probably call "Even More About Friday".
Rich
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Back Home
I got back home last night at about 11 PM. It's now about 24 hours later and I'll be waking up in 7 hours to go to work. I can't face the thought of work quite yet, so I'm going to try to escape with a quick blog entry ( please excuse any typos - I really need to get to sleep soon ).
They'll be plenty of time later to tell you all about San Fran and Yosemite ( and plenty of time for pictures/videos ), but for now I'd like to say a few quick things about what happened on Friday, because it's kinda a natural extension to my recent "Parenthood" blog post. Parenthood is wonderful and rewarding, but it also can be quite exhausting at times, and Friday was a good example. The plan on Friday was to visit Alcatraz Island and do the prison tour, and then meet Ruth's family ( Her Dad, who came with us on the trip; Ruth's Uncle Joey ( her Dad's brother - we stayed at his house in the Bay area ); Ruth's cousin Jeffrey ( Joey's son ) and his girlfriend, Ruth's Aunt Amy ( her Dad's sister - also lives in the Bay Area ); Ruth's sister Debby and her husband Orion - they moved to the Bay Area ( Berkeley ) in March ) for dinner at this small restaurant in Chinatown ).
Things started well. We got out of the house bright and early and got parking right across the street from Pier 33 ( where the Alcatraz boat leaves from ) by 10 AM. We picked up our tickets ( we had reserved the 12:00 boat online - you had to reserve in advance ) and were told that we should be ready to board the boat at 11:40.
We then decided to head over to Pier 39. Pier 39 has a bunch of restaurants and shops. We had an early lunch/brunch there ( clam chowder in a sourdough bread bowl - yummy yummy! ), but we then made a strategic mistake. We decided to head to the end of the pier to give the boys a look at the sea lions ( they sun themselves at the end of the pier ). Unfortunately, there were also a bunch of kiddie rides at the end of the Pier. Peter didn't want to leave the ride, but by the time it got to be 11:20 or so, I decided we needed to head back. Somehow, I convinced Peter to let me pick him up without much protest, and we started to walk back to the land side of the pier, so we could head back to Pier 33. I asked Ruth to walk ahead with Michael, so Michael could set a good example for Peter. Peter let me carry him for about 100 feet, but once he started to realized that we were leaving the rides he started to throw a fit. He threw such a fit that I had to call Ruth on the phone ( she was about 50 feet ahead of me - I couldn't yell because allergies had wrecked my throat by then - more on that later ) and ask her to come back and walk next to me, because I was seriously concerned that people were going to think I was kidnapping Peter.
Well anyway, the next 15 minutes were quite an ordeal. Peter weighs about 40 pounds. Carrying 40 pounds for about 6 blocks isn't real a big deal, but it is when those 40 pounds are fighting you the entire way. Not only I did have to lift him, but I had to pull him in towards me the whole way because he was using his hands and feet to try to push himself away from me the whole time ( despite the fact that if he had pushed himself out of my grasp he would have fallen back-first towards the concrete floor below ). Eventually Peter decided that pushing against my chest wasn't effective enough and started to push with his hands against my neck. This obviously made things more difficult as I was now effectively being chocked as I tried to walk and keep him from slipping to the concrete.
Anyway, but the time we made it to the line for the Alcatraz boat, my biceps were burning more than they ever had in my life, and my trachea wasn't feeling all too great. Yes, parenthood is tough - and it was still only 11:40.
It's now 12:02 AM on Monday morning, so I'm going to have to cut this blog short and finish this story later. I would have written more but Peter started acting up about 40 minutes ago ( he's still on West Coast time). He kept bugging Michael ( who was trying to sleep ), so I had to go and defuse the situation before it became a huge brawl. Yes, parenthood is tough.
See ya folks,
Rich
They'll be plenty of time later to tell you all about San Fran and Yosemite ( and plenty of time for pictures/videos ), but for now I'd like to say a few quick things about what happened on Friday, because it's kinda a natural extension to my recent "Parenthood" blog post. Parenthood is wonderful and rewarding, but it also can be quite exhausting at times, and Friday was a good example. The plan on Friday was to visit Alcatraz Island and do the prison tour, and then meet Ruth's family ( Her Dad, who came with us on the trip; Ruth's Uncle Joey ( her Dad's brother - we stayed at his house in the Bay area ); Ruth's cousin Jeffrey ( Joey's son ) and his girlfriend, Ruth's Aunt Amy ( her Dad's sister - also lives in the Bay Area ); Ruth's sister Debby and her husband Orion - they moved to the Bay Area ( Berkeley ) in March ) for dinner at this small restaurant in Chinatown ).
Things started well. We got out of the house bright and early and got parking right across the street from Pier 33 ( where the Alcatraz boat leaves from ) by 10 AM. We picked up our tickets ( we had reserved the 12:00 boat online - you had to reserve in advance ) and were told that we should be ready to board the boat at 11:40.
We then decided to head over to Pier 39. Pier 39 has a bunch of restaurants and shops. We had an early lunch/brunch there ( clam chowder in a sourdough bread bowl - yummy yummy! ), but we then made a strategic mistake. We decided to head to the end of the pier to give the boys a look at the sea lions ( they sun themselves at the end of the pier ). Unfortunately, there were also a bunch of kiddie rides at the end of the Pier. Peter didn't want to leave the ride, but by the time it got to be 11:20 or so, I decided we needed to head back. Somehow, I convinced Peter to let me pick him up without much protest, and we started to walk back to the land side of the pier, so we could head back to Pier 33. I asked Ruth to walk ahead with Michael, so Michael could set a good example for Peter. Peter let me carry him for about 100 feet, but once he started to realized that we were leaving the rides he started to throw a fit. He threw such a fit that I had to call Ruth on the phone ( she was about 50 feet ahead of me - I couldn't yell because allergies had wrecked my throat by then - more on that later ) and ask her to come back and walk next to me, because I was seriously concerned that people were going to think I was kidnapping Peter.
Well anyway, the next 15 minutes were quite an ordeal. Peter weighs about 40 pounds. Carrying 40 pounds for about 6 blocks isn't real a big deal, but it is when those 40 pounds are fighting you the entire way. Not only I did have to lift him, but I had to pull him in towards me the whole way because he was using his hands and feet to try to push himself away from me the whole time ( despite the fact that if he had pushed himself out of my grasp he would have fallen back-first towards the concrete floor below ). Eventually Peter decided that pushing against my chest wasn't effective enough and started to push with his hands against my neck. This obviously made things more difficult as I was now effectively being chocked as I tried to walk and keep him from slipping to the concrete.
Anyway, but the time we made it to the line for the Alcatraz boat, my biceps were burning more than they ever had in my life, and my trachea wasn't feeling all too great. Yes, parenthood is tough - and it was still only 11:40.
It's now 12:02 AM on Monday morning, so I'm going to have to cut this blog short and finish this story later. I would have written more but Peter started acting up about 40 minutes ago ( he's still on West Coast time). He kept bugging Michael ( who was trying to sleep ), so I had to go and defuse the situation before it became a huge brawl. Yes, parenthood is tough.
See ya folks,
Rich
Friday, August 21, 2009
California here I come
Well, as I said in my last post, there aint gonna be much blogin' this month, but I figured I might as well shoot off a really quick post just to let you know I'm alive and well.
I'll heading to California with my family tomorrow morning. We spent all night packing, and I'll be heading off to bed in a few minutes. We have an 11:30 flight, but I want to make sure we get on the road by 8 AM. Traveling isn't easy with two little kids. We've got to lug two big car seats with us, and just getting everything from the long-term parking to the airport terminal can be quite an ordeal. However, I'm really looking forward to the trip. We'll be staying in the San Fran area, and we'll also be spending a few days in Yosemite National Park. There's gonna be a lot of fun stuff to do and a lot of great things to see. Hopefully, we'll get some nice pictures out of this too.
Rich
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Timesinks
I'm probably not going to do a lot of blogging or YT-ing the rest of this month. I've got a lot to do ( taking a trip to California at the end of the month ), and there's a lot of random stuff that is taking up a bunch of my time. I started to work on my 30 questions blog response, but as I was doing some research for the "favorite video game" question, I stumbled across this major timesink. The link in the last sentence may not mean much to most of the people reading this, but if you played Atari 2600 games back in the 70's and 80's, DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK unless you have several hours to spare RIGHT NOW.
Some of the other things that are taking up my time include ...
My new laptop: The laptop came with 60-days of Norton anti-virus. The Norton product installed was really just a bare-bones product, so rather than wait 60 days, I decided to download and install the top-of-the-line Norton product. So I bought the product ( with a two-year subscription ), downloaded it, and started to install it. During installation, the Norton installation process informed me that it detected another Norton product on the computer. It told me it removed the product, and said I had to restart the computer to continue the installation. So, I restarted the computer, and the installation continued. A few seconds later the Norton installation process informed me that it had detected a Norton product on the computer ( uh oh - you see where this is going, don't you? ). It told me that it had deleted the other Norton product, and instructed me to restart the computer to continue the installation. Uh oh! Yes, I was stuck in a very unhappy loop. I was up to 3 AM trying to figure out a way around this, but eventually I gave up. Thankfully, I had made backup images of the initial laptop setup before I did anything else with the laptop, so the next morning, I simply restored that laptop to the original factory settings. I can still access and re-download the Norton product via their website, and for the next 60 days, the laptop will be protected by the original Norton product. So, basically, I've just kicked the problem 60 days down the road. I'm going to wait for the 60-day trial to end, and then I'm going to try downloading and installing the new Norton product again. I sure hope this works the next time I try it.
Fruit flies: For the last few weeks I've been battling an infestation of fruit flies in my house. I don't want to use anything like a spray with little kids around the house, so let's just say I've been killing these flies the old fashioned-way ( If you consider spending 30 minutes each night sucking them up with a vacuum old-fashioned - It's really the only way to get them without using sprays, ugly flypaper, or making a mess on the walls and windows . ). I really have no idea where the flies are coming from. I was killing about 100 a night for a while, and it seemed like there would be at least 100 more each day. I've been trying as hard as I can to terminate these little suckers faster than they can reproduce. I think I'm finally starting to win the battle, because the flies have really started to thin out over the last few days.
I enjoyed the following video so much, that it became a bit of a timesink yesterday ( Sorry, embedding is disabled for this video ). You really need to be a Beatles fan to appreciate this video, but if you are a Beatles fan, I'm sure you'll be very impressed by it.
Oh, even though it was a bit of a timesink, I think the Beatles parody video inspired me to get back in the business of making parody songs on YT. Nobody really took me up on my "Love is a Battlefield" offer, but I just thought of a parody I could do completely by myself. It's going to be a while before I find the time to make this video, but because you're all such loyal readers, I'll give you a little inside information about the video I'm about to make.
Earlier today, I read an article on fivethirtyeight.com which mentioned Michelle Malkin.
For some reason, this inspired me to start writing a Michelle Malkin song parody based on the Beatles song "Michelle".
The parody will be a ( hopefully ) humorous take on my conflicted feelings about Michelle Malkin. Michelle Malkin is a conservative super-right-wing politic pundit. I absolutely detest her political views ( To give you an idea of where she is coming from, she wrote a book called "In Defense of Interment" in which see defended the forced interment of Japanese Americans during World War II ). However, I also think she's REALLY REALLY HOT. Don't get me wrong - even if I was single I would never want to date somebody like her in a million years, but I still can't help but be a little bit turned on every time I see her on TV. It actually makes me feel a little bit guilty, considering how much I hate everything she stands for.
It made me feel especially guilty when I found I was a little turned-on by the video below:
Rich
Some of the other things that are taking up my time include ...
My new laptop: The laptop came with 60-days of Norton anti-virus. The Norton product installed was really just a bare-bones product, so rather than wait 60 days, I decided to download and install the top-of-the-line Norton product. So I bought the product ( with a two-year subscription ), downloaded it, and started to install it. During installation, the Norton installation process informed me that it detected another Norton product on the computer. It told me it removed the product, and said I had to restart the computer to continue the installation. So, I restarted the computer, and the installation continued. A few seconds later the Norton installation process informed me that it had detected a Norton product on the computer ( uh oh - you see where this is going, don't you? ). It told me that it had deleted the other Norton product, and instructed me to restart the computer to continue the installation. Uh oh! Yes, I was stuck in a very unhappy loop. I was up to 3 AM trying to figure out a way around this, but eventually I gave up. Thankfully, I had made backup images of the initial laptop setup before I did anything else with the laptop, so the next morning, I simply restored that laptop to the original factory settings. I can still access and re-download the Norton product via their website, and for the next 60 days, the laptop will be protected by the original Norton product. So, basically, I've just kicked the problem 60 days down the road. I'm going to wait for the 60-day trial to end, and then I'm going to try downloading and installing the new Norton product again. I sure hope this works the next time I try it.
Fruit flies: For the last few weeks I've been battling an infestation of fruit flies in my house. I don't want to use anything like a spray with little kids around the house, so let's just say I've been killing these flies the old fashioned-way ( If you consider spending 30 minutes each night sucking them up with a vacuum old-fashioned - It's really the only way to get them without using sprays, ugly flypaper, or making a mess on the walls and windows . ). I really have no idea where the flies are coming from. I was killing about 100 a night for a while, and it seemed like there would be at least 100 more each day. I've been trying as hard as I can to terminate these little suckers faster than they can reproduce. I think I'm finally starting to win the battle, because the flies have really started to thin out over the last few days.
I enjoyed the following video so much, that it became a bit of a timesink yesterday ( Sorry, embedding is disabled for this video ). You really need to be a Beatles fan to appreciate this video, but if you are a Beatles fan, I'm sure you'll be very impressed by it.
Oh, even though it was a bit of a timesink, I think the Beatles parody video inspired me to get back in the business of making parody songs on YT. Nobody really took me up on my "Love is a Battlefield" offer, but I just thought of a parody I could do completely by myself. It's going to be a while before I find the time to make this video, but because you're all such loyal readers, I'll give you a little inside information about the video I'm about to make.
Earlier today, I read an article on fivethirtyeight.com which mentioned Michelle Malkin.
For some reason, this inspired me to start writing a Michelle Malkin song parody based on the Beatles song "Michelle".
The parody will be a ( hopefully ) humorous take on my conflicted feelings about Michelle Malkin. Michelle Malkin is a conservative super-right-wing politic pundit. I absolutely detest her political views ( To give you an idea of where she is coming from, she wrote a book called "In Defense of Interment" in which see defended the forced interment of Japanese Americans during World War II ). However, I also think she's REALLY REALLY HOT. Don't get me wrong - even if I was single I would never want to date somebody like her in a million years, but I still can't help but be a little bit turned on every time I see her on TV. It actually makes me feel a little bit guilty, considering how much I hate everything she stands for.
It made me feel especially guilty when I found I was a little turned-on by the video below:
Rich
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Dave Winfield is 57
Dave Winfield is 57. He was quoted in a news article today, and he was referred to as "Dave Winfield, 57". This makes me feel rather old. It always makes you feel old when you realize that one of the sports stars you watched as kid is almost a senior citizen (Note to the non-Americans out there: Dave Winfield was a Hall-of-Fame baseball player who played from 1973 to 1995. He played for the New York Yankees from 1981 to 1990. I'm from New York, and I remember that it was huge news when he was signed by the Yankees, because his Yankees contract made him the highest paid baseball player of all time. The size of his contract and the Yankees' failure to win a World Series during his years with the team led to a lot of tension between Winfield and the Yankees' owner ( more on that at the end of this blog post ). While he was never one of my favorite players ( He was a New York Yankee after all, and everyone who knows me IRL can tell you that if you cut me open, I'll bleed the ORANGE and BLUE of the NEW YORK METS ), but I always admired his talent ). I couldn't believe that this incredibly graceful athlete I used to watch was now practically an old man ( I just noticed that he'll turn 58 in less than 2 months ).
As I pondered Winfield and his age, I thought back to some of the great catches he made in the Yankees Stadium outfield. This somehow reminded me of another great catch made at Yankees Stadium - a catch made by a player named Ken Griffey. Thinking about Ken Griffey made me feel even older.
Ken Griffey was another ballplayer whose career started in 1973. I'm too young remember his entire career ( I was born in January of 1970 ), but I remember Griffey playing in the 1976 World Series ( at Yankees Stadium ) when he was an All-Star outfielder for the world champion Cincinnati Reds.
However, this memory ( and the fact that Ken Griffey is already 59 ) isn't what is making me feel old. What's making me feel old is that Ken Griffey Jr. is now nearing the end of his baseball career.
Ken Griffey Jr.'s career started in 1989 when was a 19-year-old rookie ( He was actually teammates with his dad for one year ). Griffey's less than 2-months older than me ( he was born in November of 1969 ), so watching him age over the years has kinda been like watching myself age. It's hard to believe that such a young, skinny, and graceful ballplayer who once looked like this ...
... is now a washed-up middle-aged player with a big gut who looks like this ...
It's hard to believe that 20 years of his ( and my ) life has passed that quickly.
Seeing how Griffey has aged makes me think about how I have aged over the years. If I compare how I look now to photos from 20 years ago, it certainly doesn't seem like I've aged *that* much. Sure, I've got a wrinkle or two around my eyes, but I think I basically look the same ( Yes, I keep telling myself that - please don't correct me if I'm wrong. :p ). I also don't think I've lost too much athletically. I've lost a *little* of bit of ability when it comes to stuff that requires flexibility and quick bursts of power ( like sprinting, jumping, or lifting weights ), but I certainly have *far* better endurance than I did when I was 20 ( I didn't start a running regimen until I was 31 ). Of course, it's a lot easier for me to maintain the athletic ability of my 20's than somebody like Griffey. Griffey was a world-class athlete ( When he was in his prime, many considered Griffey to be the best baseball player in the world ), while I'm just a regular guy. Griffey had a lot more athletic ability to lose than me ( I guess that's one of the advantages of not being a world-class athlete. If you are not a world-class athlete and you work hard enough, you could theoretically be in the best shape of your life at 50. If you're the best athlete in the world at 25, there's no way you could be in even better shape at the age of 50. ).
In any case, I guess there's no way to stave off Father Time forever, so rather than dwell on that, let me end this post on a lighter note.
Earlier in this post, I mentioned the tension between Dave Winfield and the Yankees' owner ( Geroge Steinbrenner ). The tension stemmed from Steinbrenner's comments after the 1981 World Series ( baseball's championship series ). The Yankees lost that Series in large part because Winfield only got 1 hit in 22 tries in the Series ( Note to non-baseball fans: That is indeed a REALLY REALLY bad performance ). After the Series, Steinbrenner derisively referred to Winfield as "Mr. May". Why was this considered to be a big insult? Well, let me explain for all the non-baseball fans out there.
The baseball regular season runs from April to September. In October, baseball determines its champion through a series of playoff games which culminate in the 2 best teams playing for the championship in the World Series. The Yankees had won the World Series in 1977 and 1978 in large part because of the great performances of a player named Reggie Jackson. Reggie set a record for most home runs in one World Series in 1977, and he also led his former team ( the Oakland A's ) to three straight World Series Championships from 1972 to 1974. Thanks to his consistently great performances in the World Series, Reggie earned the nickname "Mr. October". When, Steinbrenner called Winfield "Mr. May", he was essentially telling him "You're no Reggie Jackson".
While most of the non-Americans reading this have never seen Reggie Jackson play baseball ( His last season was 1987, so most of you would have been too young ( or too unborn ) to have seen him play anyway ), you've all probably seen him in a movie. If you haven't seen him in the movie I'm thinking about, I strongly suggest that you go rent this movie right NAO! The movie I'm talking about is "The Naked Gun", which IMHO is one of the two or three funniest movies of all-time. Reggie plays the baseball player who keeps saying "I must kill the Queen". You can see Reggie's performance starting at the 1:54 point of the clip below:
I'll leave you with my favorite quote from "The Naked Gun".
"Jane, since I've met you, I've noticed things that I never knew were there before...
... birds singing,
...dew glistening on a newly formed leaf,
... stoplights."
Rich
As I pondered Winfield and his age, I thought back to some of the great catches he made in the Yankees Stadium outfield. This somehow reminded me of another great catch made at Yankees Stadium - a catch made by a player named Ken Griffey. Thinking about Ken Griffey made me feel even older.
Ken Griffey was another ballplayer whose career started in 1973. I'm too young remember his entire career ( I was born in January of 1970 ), but I remember Griffey playing in the 1976 World Series ( at Yankees Stadium ) when he was an All-Star outfielder for the world champion Cincinnati Reds.
However, this memory ( and the fact that Ken Griffey is already 59 ) isn't what is making me feel old. What's making me feel old is that Ken Griffey Jr. is now nearing the end of his baseball career.
Ken Griffey Jr.'s career started in 1989 when was a 19-year-old rookie ( He was actually teammates with his dad for one year ). Griffey's less than 2-months older than me ( he was born in November of 1969 ), so watching him age over the years has kinda been like watching myself age. It's hard to believe that such a young, skinny, and graceful ballplayer who once looked like this ...
... is now a washed-up middle-aged player with a big gut who looks like this ...
It's hard to believe that 20 years of his ( and my ) life has passed that quickly.
Seeing how Griffey has aged makes me think about how I have aged over the years. If I compare how I look now to photos from 20 years ago, it certainly doesn't seem like I've aged *that* much. Sure, I've got a wrinkle or two around my eyes, but I think I basically look the same ( Yes, I keep telling myself that - please don't correct me if I'm wrong. :p ). I also don't think I've lost too much athletically. I've lost a *little* of bit of ability when it comes to stuff that requires flexibility and quick bursts of power ( like sprinting, jumping, or lifting weights ), but I certainly have *far* better endurance than I did when I was 20 ( I didn't start a running regimen until I was 31 ). Of course, it's a lot easier for me to maintain the athletic ability of my 20's than somebody like Griffey. Griffey was a world-class athlete ( When he was in his prime, many considered Griffey to be the best baseball player in the world ), while I'm just a regular guy. Griffey had a lot more athletic ability to lose than me ( I guess that's one of the advantages of not being a world-class athlete. If you are not a world-class athlete and you work hard enough, you could theoretically be in the best shape of your life at 50. If you're the best athlete in the world at 25, there's no way you could be in even better shape at the age of 50. ).
In any case, I guess there's no way to stave off Father Time forever, so rather than dwell on that, let me end this post on a lighter note.
Earlier in this post, I mentioned the tension between Dave Winfield and the Yankees' owner ( Geroge Steinbrenner ). The tension stemmed from Steinbrenner's comments after the 1981 World Series ( baseball's championship series ). The Yankees lost that Series in large part because Winfield only got 1 hit in 22 tries in the Series ( Note to non-baseball fans: That is indeed a REALLY REALLY bad performance ). After the Series, Steinbrenner derisively referred to Winfield as "Mr. May". Why was this considered to be a big insult? Well, let me explain for all the non-baseball fans out there.
The baseball regular season runs from April to September. In October, baseball determines its champion through a series of playoff games which culminate in the 2 best teams playing for the championship in the World Series. The Yankees had won the World Series in 1977 and 1978 in large part because of the great performances of a player named Reggie Jackson. Reggie set a record for most home runs in one World Series in 1977, and he also led his former team ( the Oakland A's ) to three straight World Series Championships from 1972 to 1974. Thanks to his consistently great performances in the World Series, Reggie earned the nickname "Mr. October". When, Steinbrenner called Winfield "Mr. May", he was essentially telling him "You're no Reggie Jackson".
While most of the non-Americans reading this have never seen Reggie Jackson play baseball ( His last season was 1987, so most of you would have been too young ( or too unborn ) to have seen him play anyway ), you've all probably seen him in a movie. If you haven't seen him in the movie I'm thinking about, I strongly suggest that you go rent this movie right NAO! The movie I'm talking about is "The Naked Gun", which IMHO is one of the two or three funniest movies of all-time. Reggie plays the baseball player who keeps saying "I must kill the Queen". You can see Reggie's performance starting at the 1:54 point of the clip below:
I'll leave you with my favorite quote from "The Naked Gun".
"Jane, since I've met you, I've noticed things that I never knew were there before...
... birds singing,
...dew glistening on a newly formed leaf,
... stoplights."
Rich
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
So Heartwarming
I usually don't cover real world news in the blog, but I saw something today that I just had to share.
I'm sure most of you have heard the Laura Ling / Euna Lee story by now. If you haven't heard the story ( perhaps this wasn't covered much outside of the USA? ), you can Google their names for details, but the gist of the story is this: Laura and Euna are American journalist who have basically been held hostage by North Korea for the last 5 months. They were released yesterday thanks to the intervention of Bill Clinton.
When the story first broke 5 months ago, the media did a few interviews Laura and Euna's families. I was particularly touched to learn about Euna's pre-school aged daughter. As a parent of two young children, I kept thinking about how horrible it would be to be separated from my boys. I got misty-eyed when I heard Euna's husband say that their daughter kept asking when Mommy was going to come home.
So, when I heard they were being released, all I could think about is how wonderful if would be when Euna was reunited with her daughter again. Sometime this morning, Laura and Euna arrived back in the USA. I read the story at work, and got kinda choked-up when I saw the photo below.
Take a look at Euna's face in this photo. Really - click on the photo to enlarge it and take a look at her face. This is one of the most heartwarming images I have ever seen. I think I would've made the exact same kind of face if I had been reunited with my kids after 5 months. I feel so happy for Euna, and so happy that her little daughter gets to be with Mommy again.
I'm getting a warm feeling in my heart just from writing this blog post. I'll leave you with a couple of other photos I also found heartwarming ...
I'm sure most of you have heard the Laura Ling / Euna Lee story by now. If you haven't heard the story ( perhaps this wasn't covered much outside of the USA? ), you can Google their names for details, but the gist of the story is this: Laura and Euna are American journalist who have basically been held hostage by North Korea for the last 5 months. They were released yesterday thanks to the intervention of Bill Clinton.
When the story first broke 5 months ago, the media did a few interviews Laura and Euna's families. I was particularly touched to learn about Euna's pre-school aged daughter. As a parent of two young children, I kept thinking about how horrible it would be to be separated from my boys. I got misty-eyed when I heard Euna's husband say that their daughter kept asking when Mommy was going to come home.
So, when I heard they were being released, all I could think about is how wonderful if would be when Euna was reunited with her daughter again. Sometime this morning, Laura and Euna arrived back in the USA. I read the story at work, and got kinda choked-up when I saw the photo below.
Take a look at Euna's face in this photo. Really - click on the photo to enlarge it and take a look at her face. This is one of the most heartwarming images I have ever seen. I think I would've made the exact same kind of face if I had been reunited with my kids after 5 months. I feel so happy for Euna, and so happy that her little daughter gets to be with Mommy again.
I'm getting a warm feeling in my heart just from writing this blog post. I'll leave you with a couple of other photos I also found heartwarming ...
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Parenthood
This post is going to be a direct response to this post by Shweta.
OK, I obviously wasn't there, but I've got a strong suspicion that you are being WAY too hard on this mom. First of all, I don't know why you would think that ...
use of pacifier = really lame way to tend to her kid
Now, I'm not saying this as a parent who worshiped at the alter of the pacifier. I'm well versed in both the pros and cons of pacifiers. I actually think a parent is probably better off not using a pacifier. We used a pacifier with Michael, but decided not to use a pacifier with Peter. By the time Peter was born, we realized just how tough it was going to be to ween Michael off the pacifier. Michael had to quit the pacifier cold turkey because we were told by his doctors that the pacifier could be contributing to his speech delay. Michael threw tantrums almost continually for two weeks after we took his pacifier away ( He would cry until he was exhausted, fall asleep, and then wake up and start crying again ). It was a really traumatic experience for us, so it was an easy decision to never introduce a pacifier to Peter ( We weened Michael off the pacifier when Peter was about 6 month old - thankfully we had not introduced Peter to a pacifier by then ).
OK, I know what was a long tangent. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm probably a "no pacifier" person these days. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with pacifiers. Sucking on stuff certainly does comfort babies. The need to suck stuff is really an instinct that all babies have. We were careful to make sure that Peter didn't get attached to a single object like a pacifier, but we really couldn't do anything about that sucking instinct. While Peter didn't have a pacifier to suck on, he certainly sucked on anything he could get his hands on ( to this day, we still find him chewing on his shirts.) .
I guess that point I'm trying to make is that putting a pacifier in a baby's mouth is not an example of lazy parenting. It's not an example of a parent taking the easy way out rather than giving a baby what he/she wants and needs. Quite often, the pacifier is exactly what the baby wants. Also, it's not as if the mom has much of a choice. There are only so many ways you can calm down a crying baby. Most of those ways require giving the baby quite a bit of one-on-one attention. I assume you felt the mom should have been giving the baby more one-on-one attention, but considering what was going on with her son, that wasn't really an option at the time.
Taking care of two kids ( without help ) in a public setting can be a scary thing for a parent, especially when one ( or both ) of them are mobile. When the Mom saw Jayden running up and down the aisle, I don't think she was thinking ...
"I hope people don't think that I'm a bad parent."
OR
"How can I discipline Jayden with making people think that I'm an abusive parent?"
What she was probably thinking was ...
"OMG, I hope I don't loose sight of Jayden on this crowded bus. I hope somebody doesn't snatch him at the next bus stop and run off with him."
In today's world, all parents live in fear of their children being kidnapped. I'm sure the mom wasn't too concerned about Jayden acting disrespectful and making her look bad. Her primary concern was probably his safety. With that in mind, she really needed to watch Jayden like a hawk when he was running up and down the aisle. She probably felt that she couldn't afford to give the bady more attention. Besides, if the pacifier calmed the baby down, then the pacifier was exactly what the baby wanted/needed. Of course, I could be wrong about all this. I guess it's possible that this mother is simply lazy and doesn't give her kids enough attention. However, without knowing all the facts, I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt.
Speaking of "the benefit of the doubt", it's hard to pass judgment on the mom's handling of Jayden without knowing more about Jayden. For all we know, Jayden could have PDD, Tourette's syndrome, or some other developmental disorder. Both of my children have forms of PDD, which means that getting them to behave "normal" can be exceedingly difficult at times. In fact, "normal" behavior is never really entirely possible, because kids with PDD have brains that are wired differently than "typical" kids. My boys are wonderful in so many ways, but they can be a handful at times, and I'm sure that a lot of folks who see me in public with my kids jump to the conclusion that I'm "not raising them the right way". Of course, I don't know if that's the case with Jayden, but based on my personal experience, I always give the parents the benefit of the doubt when I see a misbehaving kid.
All that being said, let's assume for a moment that Jayden is a "typical" kid without any development disorders. Does his disrespectful behavior reflect badly on his mom? Well, before tackling that question, let me first address what you had to say about Asian kids. I wouldn't call what you said "racist", but I would call it ( let me just make up a word here ) culturalist. You are clearly not saying that there are any kind of genetics-based behavioral differences between Asian kids and non-Asian kids, but I think you are implying that Asian kids are much less likely to be disrespectful, because many Asian cultures ( and Asian parents ) stress respect for elders more so than most non-Asian cultures. If that's what you are saying, I can certainly see where you are coming from. Of course, there is no single homogeneous Asian culture, but between my friends and extended family, I've certainly seen enough of the parent/child dynamic in Chinese/Korean/Japanese/Indian/Vietnamese families to come to the conclusion that the parent/child dynamic is often very different in Asian families than it is in non-Asian families. Of course, while some of that has to do with the culture of the country people can trace their roots to, I think a lot of it also has to do with the immigrant experience. Most of my Asian friends are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. Back in high school, more than half of my non-Asian friends were also immigrants or the children of immigrants. Based on my experience with Asian/non-Asian/immigrant/non-immigrant families I actually think that the immigrant-factor correlates a lot better with respect-for-parents than race does . Respect for parents seem to be an "old country" value regardless of where the "old country" is, and those "old country" values seem to fade with each passing generation.
OK, let's get back to Jayden and his lack of respect. I don't know how old Jayden is, but before we pass judgment on his mom, I think we need to ask a few questions. Is Jayden old enough to understand why being respectful is a good thing? Is he old enough to have a sense of empathy? Does he understand that other people have feelings too, and that when he behaves badly, he can hurt the ones he loves ( like his mom ). If Jayden is actually capable of understanding such things, I would say that his Mom has done a bad job instilling the right values in him. However, if a kid is not old enough to understand why being respectful is important, I don't think we should give a parent too much credit if they've managed to make their kids obedient little robots. I actually don't think that the ability to make a pre-school child obedient and respectful is a always a sign of good parenting. I actually think it can sometimes be a sign of bad parenting if the parent is using strict discipline to get the child to behave respectfully.
In order to explain what I mean, I'll have to review my theory of parenting a bit. My theory of parenting is really based on the way my parents tried to raise me and the effect it had on me. I have a pretty good memory of what they tried to do, and I remember what worked and what didn't work. My Mom and Dad had very different parenting styles. My Dad had a rather typical parenting style that never really clicked with me. Thankfully, my Mom ( who was a stay-at-home mom ) spent a lot more time raising me than my Dad. I found my Mom's parenting style to be much more effective than my Dad's. Her parenting style made me the person I am today, and I'm raising my kids based on the way she raised me. Now, I love my Dad and all, but we don't see eye-to-eye when it come to raising kids. He ( and his girlfriend ( who shares a lot of his beliefs about parenting) ) have often been critical of the way I've been raising Michael and Peter. When he does this, I really want to tell him ...
1) It's none of your business how I raise my kids.
2) Your parenting methods weren't that effective with me. Most of the stuff you told me went in one ear and out the other. I'm glad that you're proud that I've been a good, dutiful, successful, and respectful son, but don't pat yourself on the back too much. I'm the person I am today because of Mom. Her parenting methods worked and yours really didn't. I'm raising my kids based on the way Mom raised me, and nothing you tell me is going to change that.
3) Oh, and PLEASE ask your girlfriend to keep her nose out of our lives. Also, ask her to stop implying that some of Craig's ( my brother's ) bad habits ( he's a really picky eater, and he rarely eats healthy foods like fruits and vegetables ) are the result of him being coddled too much as a child. She knows as well as you do that Mom primarily raised Craig and me, so when she says Craig was coddled, she's saying that Mom coddled Craig too much. Perhaps Mom made some mistakes raising us ( nobody's perfect ) , but your girlfriend is seriously crossing the line when she criticizes my Mom's parenting methods. I'm sure she wouldn't say that kind of stuff to my Mom's face if my Mom were still alive, so she shouldn't be able to get away with saying that stuff just because my Mom isn't around to defend herself.
However, I only see my Dad about twice a year ( and my Mom raised me to be both respectful and considerate of other people's feelings ), so I hold my tongue and don't say anything.
Geez, all that stuff above must really make me sound bitter. I guess should make it clear here that I don't really have a lot of problems with my Dad. There are just are couple of things that bother me and I really felt the need to vent.
Still, I REALLY REALLY hope he never reads what I wrote above. I guess the surest make to keep that from happening is to never post it ( Heck, I started this post on June 21st, and I writing this sentence on July 11th ), but I know he's not even aware of my blog. However, on the small chance that he ever does read this, I'd like to say the following to him:
( Dad, I sincerely hope you are not offended by some of the stuff I wrote above. I don't want you to think that I think you were a bad father. You weren't a perfect father ( and I wasn't a perfect son ), but I think that you were probably better than 95% of the Dad's out there. Mom may be my biggest roll model, but there are lot's of things I admire about you.
- You were completely dedicated to Mom, and that was never more clear than during the last 7 years of her life. You fought so hard to find the best possible medical care for her.
- You were always a good son to your parents. I still remember the long car rides we took about 10 time a year to visit your parents in Connecticut. I'm sure there were other ways you would have rather spent your free weekend days, but you always made sure your Mom and Dad got to see the grandkids.
- You've been a good brother to your older brother Art. I know you still call him every day, and you're really the only person in his life that really looks out for him ( Note: My uncle has had mental issues for most of his life ( probably the result of Asperger's Syndrome ), and now is in a nursing home ).
- You have more practical "Dad skills" than almost any Dad I know. I remember how you finished the basement in our home all by yourself ( He worked each weekend, and each night after coming home from work. He did the electrical wiring, the carpet, the ceiling, the walls - it really was an amazing job. ). I remember when the garage started to sag/tilt, and you fixed the problem by creating a brand new foundation for the garage ( He dug all around the garage ( inside and out), put up wood framing, and then poured cement into the molds he made with the framing. ). You were able to do pretty much anything that needed doing around the house. I don't even change my own oil.
- I admire the 6 years you served our country in the U.S. Air Force. I'm proud to have a Dad who served his country in that way.
- I admire how you built your career as a stockbroker without a college degree. You started your career on Wall Street with a only high school diploma, a year of college, your radio operator experience in the Ar Force, and some time spent as a postman, but you managed to eventually get your stockbroker's license and support your wife and two kids well ( and send Craig and me to top universities ). I was impressed with how you went to night classes to get your Certified Financial Planner license. I think you should be as proud of your CFP as you are of the degrees that Craig and I earned.
So, I'm not trying to say you were a bad father, Dad. I'm just saying that Mom was my biggest role model, rather than you. Considering how much you loved Mom, I would hope that you wouldn't be offended by that. Considering how much you told me "Your Mom was a saint" in the week after she died, I think you would be the first to admit that she was a better person than you. So, I hope you are not offended that I'm making it clear in this blog post that my parenting style is based on Mom's parenting style rather than yours. )
OK, that was a really long tangent. Let me try to get to my point. One of the things that bothers me is when my Dad criticizes me for not imposing enough discipline on my kids. Don't get me wrong - discipline has its place. There are times in life when you simply have to behave yourself even if you don't want to. There are times in life when you need to hold your tongue, even when you are dying to say something. I certainly don't want my kids growing up without any self-control, but it's important to me that they really grow up to have the self-control to do the right thing, even if nobody else is watching. I feel that too much harsh and/or arbitrary discipline really doesn't teach kids to do the right thing. What it teaches kids is, "I'd better not get caught doing the wrong thing". If a child's primary motivation for doing the right thing is to avoid punishment, that child is going to do the wrong thing whenever he/she feels he/she can get away with it. My kids could be the most well-behaved respectful children in the world. They could do well in school, and treat all authority figures with respect. They could do everything in public to honor their family name and to make me look like a good parent. However, if they ever do something dishonest ( cheat on an exam, cheat on their taxes, work-related white collar crime, cheat on their wife/girlfriend, etc. ) when nobody is watching, then I would have failed as a parent, even if they never get caught, and even if I never find out that they did something dishonest.
I really want my kids to grow up with a world-class conscience. I want my kinds to be good simply for the sake of being going - not because they want look good or please anybody ( even me ). I know that's a really high standard, and no person can be *that* perfect and pure, but it's a standard I want my kids to strive for. I care more about that than any public accolades my kids might get someday. I know from experience that lots of "model" kids are rotten to the core. I went to Stuyvesant High School ( Stuy ), the top public high school in New York City. Every single kid who got admitted to that school was a high-achiever, the kind of kid who made his/her parents proud. Now, plenty of people at Stuy were really nice folks. Some of my best friends went to Stuy. However there were A LOT of dishonest people there. There was a good deal of cheating going on at Stuy. I'm not saying that there was more cheating going on at Stuy than any other school ( for all I know, there might have been less cheating ), but when you consider the circumstances, the cheating that went on at Stuy was really reprehensible. I could understand ( but not condone ) cheating done by kids who are just trying to pass a course, but many of the cheaters at Stuy were in no danger of failing any course. I heard about cheating done by kids with very high grades. These kids were cheating to boost their grades enough so they could get into Harvard rather than some "lesser" Ivy League school. One guy I knew ( a guy who basically cut all his classes, and thus failed them all ) occasionally wrote papers ( for a hefty fee ) for a girl who wound up going to to Harvard.
So, I don't really care if my kids act disrespectful and make me look bad when they are young, as long as the develop into genuinely good people - and despite what my Dad thinks, I don't think imposing arbitrary discipline on preschoolers helps them develop into good adults. By "arbitrary" I mean stuff like forcing your kids to sit still at the dinner table. My Dad gave me a lot of flak about Michael not sitting still at the dinner table. Michael really has "ants in his pants", and tends to wander away from the table in the middle of meals. My Dad complained about this, and implied that I was being a bad parent. Now, Michael was only about 4 at the time. His language skills were not that great yet, and there was no way he was ready to understand the concept of why sitting still at the dinner table is a nice thing to do. He was not ready to understand concepts like politeness, and why it is nice to be polite. So, with that in mind, why should I have forced Michael to do something that he really didn't understand yet? If he doesn't really understand why he should be doing something, I don't see the benefit of training him a like dog to do it. Sure, if he wanted to do something dangerous like play in traffic, I would certainly discipline him ( to keep him safe ), but I'm not going to do that for something as trivial as table manners. Michael doesn't need to be trained like a dog. He's a good sweet kid, and when he understands what the right thing to do is, he invariably does the right thing. He doesn't need to be disciplined on threatened to do the right thing, he just does the right thing (Peter doesn't quite understand things well enough yet to do the right things on his own, but he's definitely getting there ).
So, assuming I want my kids to develop into genuinely good adults, what am I doing to help make that happen? Well, that's brings me back to my Mom. I'm the person I am today for one reason, and one reason only - my mother's love. My Mom never failed to give me the love and affection I needed. She was always there to hug me, and she was always there to dry my tears. I don't think there is anything more important to a child's development than the love a child gets. A child can't succeed unless he/she feels loved. I'm proud to say I was a momma's boy, and my mom's love sustained me through the years. I loved my Mom so much that I would never want to do anything that would disappoint her or cause her pain. When I did do something wrong as a child, all it would take is a disappointed look from my Mother to start me crying. I want Michael and Peter to feel the same way about Ruth and me as I felt about my mother. If they feel that love from us, I just *KNOW* they are going to turn out to be great people.
Wow, this turned out to be a long post in so many ways ( I started writing this on June 21st ), but parenthood isn't really something you can cover comprehensively in a short blog post. It's a deeply personal thing, everyone has their own ideas, and nobody can really say which method of parenting works best. With that in mind, I really can't pass judgment on Jayden's Mom one way or the other. All I will say is that I think she should be cut a little slack over Jayden's disrespectful behavior. Every parent deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Rich
OK, I obviously wasn't there, but I've got a strong suspicion that you are being WAY too hard on this mom. First of all, I don't know why you would think that ...
use of pacifier = really lame way to tend to her kid
Now, I'm not saying this as a parent who worshiped at the alter of the pacifier. I'm well versed in both the pros and cons of pacifiers. I actually think a parent is probably better off not using a pacifier. We used a pacifier with Michael, but decided not to use a pacifier with Peter. By the time Peter was born, we realized just how tough it was going to be to ween Michael off the pacifier. Michael had to quit the pacifier cold turkey because we were told by his doctors that the pacifier could be contributing to his speech delay. Michael threw tantrums almost continually for two weeks after we took his pacifier away ( He would cry until he was exhausted, fall asleep, and then wake up and start crying again ). It was a really traumatic experience for us, so it was an easy decision to never introduce a pacifier to Peter ( We weened Michael off the pacifier when Peter was about 6 month old - thankfully we had not introduced Peter to a pacifier by then ).
OK, I know what was a long tangent. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm probably a "no pacifier" person these days. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with pacifiers. Sucking on stuff certainly does comfort babies. The need to suck stuff is really an instinct that all babies have. We were careful to make sure that Peter didn't get attached to a single object like a pacifier, but we really couldn't do anything about that sucking instinct. While Peter didn't have a pacifier to suck on, he certainly sucked on anything he could get his hands on ( to this day, we still find him chewing on his shirts.) .
I guess that point I'm trying to make is that putting a pacifier in a baby's mouth is not an example of lazy parenting. It's not an example of a parent taking the easy way out rather than giving a baby what he/she wants and needs. Quite often, the pacifier is exactly what the baby wants. Also, it's not as if the mom has much of a choice. There are only so many ways you can calm down a crying baby. Most of those ways require giving the baby quite a bit of one-on-one attention. I assume you felt the mom should have been giving the baby more one-on-one attention, but considering what was going on with her son, that wasn't really an option at the time.
Taking care of two kids ( without help ) in a public setting can be a scary thing for a parent, especially when one ( or both ) of them are mobile. When the Mom saw Jayden running up and down the aisle, I don't think she was thinking ...
"I hope people don't think that I'm a bad parent."
OR
"How can I discipline Jayden with making people think that I'm an abusive parent?"
What she was probably thinking was ...
"OMG, I hope I don't loose sight of Jayden on this crowded bus. I hope somebody doesn't snatch him at the next bus stop and run off with him."
In today's world, all parents live in fear of their children being kidnapped. I'm sure the mom wasn't too concerned about Jayden acting disrespectful and making her look bad. Her primary concern was probably his safety. With that in mind, she really needed to watch Jayden like a hawk when he was running up and down the aisle. She probably felt that she couldn't afford to give the bady more attention. Besides, if the pacifier calmed the baby down, then the pacifier was exactly what the baby wanted/needed. Of course, I could be wrong about all this. I guess it's possible that this mother is simply lazy and doesn't give her kids enough attention. However, without knowing all the facts, I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt.
Speaking of "the benefit of the doubt", it's hard to pass judgment on the mom's handling of Jayden without knowing more about Jayden. For all we know, Jayden could have PDD, Tourette's syndrome, or some other developmental disorder. Both of my children have forms of PDD, which means that getting them to behave "normal" can be exceedingly difficult at times. In fact, "normal" behavior is never really entirely possible, because kids with PDD have brains that are wired differently than "typical" kids. My boys are wonderful in so many ways, but they can be a handful at times, and I'm sure that a lot of folks who see me in public with my kids jump to the conclusion that I'm "not raising them the right way". Of course, I don't know if that's the case with Jayden, but based on my personal experience, I always give the parents the benefit of the doubt when I see a misbehaving kid.
All that being said, let's assume for a moment that Jayden is a "typical" kid without any development disorders. Does his disrespectful behavior reflect badly on his mom? Well, before tackling that question, let me first address what you had to say about Asian kids. I wouldn't call what you said "racist", but I would call it ( let me just make up a word here ) culturalist. You are clearly not saying that there are any kind of genetics-based behavioral differences between Asian kids and non-Asian kids, but I think you are implying that Asian kids are much less likely to be disrespectful, because many Asian cultures ( and Asian parents ) stress respect for elders more so than most non-Asian cultures. If that's what you are saying, I can certainly see where you are coming from. Of course, there is no single homogeneous Asian culture, but between my friends and extended family, I've certainly seen enough of the parent/child dynamic in Chinese/Korean/Japanese/Indian/Vietnamese families to come to the conclusion that the parent/child dynamic is often very different in Asian families than it is in non-Asian families. Of course, while some of that has to do with the culture of the country people can trace their roots to, I think a lot of it also has to do with the immigrant experience. Most of my Asian friends are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. Back in high school, more than half of my non-Asian friends were also immigrants or the children of immigrants. Based on my experience with Asian/non-Asian/immigrant/non-immigrant families I actually think that the immigrant-factor correlates a lot better with respect-for-parents than race does . Respect for parents seem to be an "old country" value regardless of where the "old country" is, and those "old country" values seem to fade with each passing generation.
OK, let's get back to Jayden and his lack of respect. I don't know how old Jayden is, but before we pass judgment on his mom, I think we need to ask a few questions. Is Jayden old enough to understand why being respectful is a good thing? Is he old enough to have a sense of empathy? Does he understand that other people have feelings too, and that when he behaves badly, he can hurt the ones he loves ( like his mom ). If Jayden is actually capable of understanding such things, I would say that his Mom has done a bad job instilling the right values in him. However, if a kid is not old enough to understand why being respectful is important, I don't think we should give a parent too much credit if they've managed to make their kids obedient little robots. I actually don't think that the ability to make a pre-school child obedient and respectful is a always a sign of good parenting. I actually think it can sometimes be a sign of bad parenting if the parent is using strict discipline to get the child to behave respectfully.
In order to explain what I mean, I'll have to review my theory of parenting a bit. My theory of parenting is really based on the way my parents tried to raise me and the effect it had on me. I have a pretty good memory of what they tried to do, and I remember what worked and what didn't work. My Mom and Dad had very different parenting styles. My Dad had a rather typical parenting style that never really clicked with me. Thankfully, my Mom ( who was a stay-at-home mom ) spent a lot more time raising me than my Dad. I found my Mom's parenting style to be much more effective than my Dad's. Her parenting style made me the person I am today, and I'm raising my kids based on the way she raised me. Now, I love my Dad and all, but we don't see eye-to-eye when it come to raising kids. He ( and his girlfriend ( who shares a lot of his beliefs about parenting) ) have often been critical of the way I've been raising Michael and Peter. When he does this, I really want to tell him ...
1) It's none of your business how I raise my kids.
2) Your parenting methods weren't that effective with me. Most of the stuff you told me went in one ear and out the other. I'm glad that you're proud that I've been a good, dutiful, successful, and respectful son, but don't pat yourself on the back too much. I'm the person I am today because of Mom. Her parenting methods worked and yours really didn't. I'm raising my kids based on the way Mom raised me, and nothing you tell me is going to change that.
3) Oh, and PLEASE ask your girlfriend to keep her nose out of our lives. Also, ask her to stop implying that some of Craig's ( my brother's ) bad habits ( he's a really picky eater, and he rarely eats healthy foods like fruits and vegetables ) are the result of him being coddled too much as a child. She knows as well as you do that Mom primarily raised Craig and me, so when she says Craig was coddled, she's saying that Mom coddled Craig too much. Perhaps Mom made some mistakes raising us ( nobody's perfect ) , but your girlfriend is seriously crossing the line when she criticizes my Mom's parenting methods. I'm sure she wouldn't say that kind of stuff to my Mom's face if my Mom were still alive, so she shouldn't be able to get away with saying that stuff just because my Mom isn't around to defend herself.
However, I only see my Dad about twice a year ( and my Mom raised me to be both respectful and considerate of other people's feelings ), so I hold my tongue and don't say anything.
Geez, all that stuff above must really make me sound bitter. I guess should make it clear here that I don't really have a lot of problems with my Dad. There are just are couple of things that bother me and I really felt the need to vent.
Still, I REALLY REALLY hope he never reads what I wrote above. I guess the surest make to keep that from happening is to never post it ( Heck, I started this post on June 21st, and I writing this sentence on July 11th ), but I know he's not even aware of my blog. However, on the small chance that he ever does read this, I'd like to say the following to him:
( Dad, I sincerely hope you are not offended by some of the stuff I wrote above. I don't want you to think that I think you were a bad father. You weren't a perfect father ( and I wasn't a perfect son ), but I think that you were probably better than 95% of the Dad's out there. Mom may be my biggest roll model, but there are lot's of things I admire about you.
- You were completely dedicated to Mom, and that was never more clear than during the last 7 years of her life. You fought so hard to find the best possible medical care for her.
- You were always a good son to your parents. I still remember the long car rides we took about 10 time a year to visit your parents in Connecticut. I'm sure there were other ways you would have rather spent your free weekend days, but you always made sure your Mom and Dad got to see the grandkids.
- You've been a good brother to your older brother Art. I know you still call him every day, and you're really the only person in his life that really looks out for him ( Note: My uncle has had mental issues for most of his life ( probably the result of Asperger's Syndrome ), and now is in a nursing home ).
- You have more practical "Dad skills" than almost any Dad I know. I remember how you finished the basement in our home all by yourself ( He worked each weekend, and each night after coming home from work. He did the electrical wiring, the carpet, the ceiling, the walls - it really was an amazing job. ). I remember when the garage started to sag/tilt, and you fixed the problem by creating a brand new foundation for the garage ( He dug all around the garage ( inside and out), put up wood framing, and then poured cement into the molds he made with the framing. ). You were able to do pretty much anything that needed doing around the house. I don't even change my own oil.
- I admire the 6 years you served our country in the U.S. Air Force. I'm proud to have a Dad who served his country in that way.
- I admire how you built your career as a stockbroker without a college degree. You started your career on Wall Street with a only high school diploma, a year of college, your radio operator experience in the Ar Force, and some time spent as a postman, but you managed to eventually get your stockbroker's license and support your wife and two kids well ( and send Craig and me to top universities ). I was impressed with how you went to night classes to get your Certified Financial Planner license. I think you should be as proud of your CFP as you are of the degrees that Craig and I earned.
So, I'm not trying to say you were a bad father, Dad. I'm just saying that Mom was my biggest role model, rather than you. Considering how much you loved Mom, I would hope that you wouldn't be offended by that. Considering how much you told me "Your Mom was a saint" in the week after she died, I think you would be the first to admit that she was a better person than you. So, I hope you are not offended that I'm making it clear in this blog post that my parenting style is based on Mom's parenting style rather than yours. )
OK, that was a really long tangent. Let me try to get to my point. One of the things that bothers me is when my Dad criticizes me for not imposing enough discipline on my kids. Don't get me wrong - discipline has its place. There are times in life when you simply have to behave yourself even if you don't want to. There are times in life when you need to hold your tongue, even when you are dying to say something. I certainly don't want my kids growing up without any self-control, but it's important to me that they really grow up to have the self-control to do the right thing, even if nobody else is watching. I feel that too much harsh and/or arbitrary discipline really doesn't teach kids to do the right thing. What it teaches kids is, "I'd better not get caught doing the wrong thing". If a child's primary motivation for doing the right thing is to avoid punishment, that child is going to do the wrong thing whenever he/she feels he/she can get away with it. My kids could be the most well-behaved respectful children in the world. They could do well in school, and treat all authority figures with respect. They could do everything in public to honor their family name and to make me look like a good parent. However, if they ever do something dishonest ( cheat on an exam, cheat on their taxes, work-related white collar crime, cheat on their wife/girlfriend, etc. ) when nobody is watching, then I would have failed as a parent, even if they never get caught, and even if I never find out that they did something dishonest.
I really want my kids to grow up with a world-class conscience. I want my kinds to be good simply for the sake of being going - not because they want look good or please anybody ( even me ). I know that's a really high standard, and no person can be *that* perfect and pure, but it's a standard I want my kids to strive for. I care more about that than any public accolades my kids might get someday. I know from experience that lots of "model" kids are rotten to the core. I went to Stuyvesant High School ( Stuy ), the top public high school in New York City. Every single kid who got admitted to that school was a high-achiever, the kind of kid who made his/her parents proud. Now, plenty of people at Stuy were really nice folks. Some of my best friends went to Stuy. However there were A LOT of dishonest people there. There was a good deal of cheating going on at Stuy. I'm not saying that there was more cheating going on at Stuy than any other school ( for all I know, there might have been less cheating ), but when you consider the circumstances, the cheating that went on at Stuy was really reprehensible. I could understand ( but not condone ) cheating done by kids who are just trying to pass a course, but many of the cheaters at Stuy were in no danger of failing any course. I heard about cheating done by kids with very high grades. These kids were cheating to boost their grades enough so they could get into Harvard rather than some "lesser" Ivy League school. One guy I knew ( a guy who basically cut all his classes, and thus failed them all ) occasionally wrote papers ( for a hefty fee ) for a girl who wound up going to to Harvard.
So, I don't really care if my kids act disrespectful and make me look bad when they are young, as long as the develop into genuinely good people - and despite what my Dad thinks, I don't think imposing arbitrary discipline on preschoolers helps them develop into good adults. By "arbitrary" I mean stuff like forcing your kids to sit still at the dinner table. My Dad gave me a lot of flak about Michael not sitting still at the dinner table. Michael really has "ants in his pants", and tends to wander away from the table in the middle of meals. My Dad complained about this, and implied that I was being a bad parent. Now, Michael was only about 4 at the time. His language skills were not that great yet, and there was no way he was ready to understand the concept of why sitting still at the dinner table is a nice thing to do. He was not ready to understand concepts like politeness, and why it is nice to be polite. So, with that in mind, why should I have forced Michael to do something that he really didn't understand yet? If he doesn't really understand why he should be doing something, I don't see the benefit of training him a like dog to do it. Sure, if he wanted to do something dangerous like play in traffic, I would certainly discipline him ( to keep him safe ), but I'm not going to do that for something as trivial as table manners. Michael doesn't need to be trained like a dog. He's a good sweet kid, and when he understands what the right thing to do is, he invariably does the right thing. He doesn't need to be disciplined on threatened to do the right thing, he just does the right thing (Peter doesn't quite understand things well enough yet to do the right things on his own, but he's definitely getting there ).
So, assuming I want my kids to develop into genuinely good adults, what am I doing to help make that happen? Well, that's brings me back to my Mom. I'm the person I am today for one reason, and one reason only - my mother's love. My Mom never failed to give me the love and affection I needed. She was always there to hug me, and she was always there to dry my tears. I don't think there is anything more important to a child's development than the love a child gets. A child can't succeed unless he/she feels loved. I'm proud to say I was a momma's boy, and my mom's love sustained me through the years. I loved my Mom so much that I would never want to do anything that would disappoint her or cause her pain. When I did do something wrong as a child, all it would take is a disappointed look from my Mother to start me crying. I want Michael and Peter to feel the same way about Ruth and me as I felt about my mother. If they feel that love from us, I just *KNOW* they are going to turn out to be great people.
Wow, this turned out to be a long post in so many ways ( I started writing this on June 21st ), but parenthood isn't really something you can cover comprehensively in a short blog post. It's a deeply personal thing, everyone has their own ideas, and nobody can really say which method of parenting works best. With that in mind, I really can't pass judgment on Jayden's Mom one way or the other. All I will say is that I think she should be cut a little slack over Jayden's disrespectful behavior. Every parent deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Rich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)