It’s About Making Babies!

In the beginning of the Harrison Ford moving ‘Firewall’, Ford plays a family man in the morning, getting ready for work.

Both Beth and Jack Stanfield repeatedly speak to each child as well as the dog, and accept being ignored. Where did these kids learn discipline? Their borderline (certainly not courteous) behavior at the beginning of the movie shows they do understand discipline.

It seems a stretch that these kids that understand, and get away with, ignoring parents — don’t get themselves shot by the first thug with a gun that they stumble into! The thugs twice tape the kids’ mouths shut, the first time for yakking (non-discipline), the second so the boy could have an asthma attack with his mouth taped and show a human side of the kindly kidnapper.

I understand this is a work of fiction. But the fiction of un-disciplined parents having ‘good’ kids is surely better understood today. I doubt most parents would tolerate the kid walking around the sister’s table continuously just to annoy her — or put up with repeated instructions to do something else. On the surface this is a disfunctional family, just happier/sappier than most would be. If the Stanfields have raised to ‘almost good’ kids, why isn’t that apparent in their interactions?

The movie goes on to show how the kid’s lack of discipline (will to complete a task) is a danger to them — why doesn’t someone point the finger of responsibility back to Beth and Jack?

According to the Foster Parent training I took, the courts have held that ‘lack of discipline’ is criminal negligence on the part of the parent/guardian. Plus, having substitute-school taught, I recently gained a new respect for the parents that practice discipline in the home, and have actual expectations that the kids will follow instructions, be respectful, and understand consequences.

The parents that fail to teach a kid the meaning of ‘no’ make their own lives more difficult than necessary. Plus, that kid will go on to increase the cost of educating kids in the community, as well as reducing the quality of education (time on topic) of every kid in every class they attend. Many such kids will additionally disrupt kids or people near them with chatter, pranks, etc.

At the Hastings book/movie store today I noticed a father tell his 3-yo daughter she couldn’t have a soda, and put it back in the (impulse lane) vending machine. The girl started with ‘Mommy said I could’, but Mom and Dad just stood there, so she started to cry, like she was just launching a true tantrum — but the line moved forward, her parents kept track of her without either ignoring or paying much attention to her — and two breaths later she was tearful but quiet. I expect that girl is well on her way to learning consequences, that lies, crying, and shifting blame don’t work real well. This will make her later life much easier for her, her family, and everyone she comes in contact with. I wanted to applaud and congratulate the parents, but didn’t want to distract the girl. Fine people, a fine family.

Who was the genius that first suggested telling kids their job in the store was to hold onto the cart? Today at Wal-Mart I watched a lady and her sleepy daughter. The young girl, maybe 8-9, held one hand on the shopping cart almost the whole time. During her one foray to ’show Mama something’, Mom continued her shopping with ‘No, we aren’t getting anything else’. Shortly the girl returned without being told, and down the aisle they went. I saw them the other side of the store, 20 minutes later, still hand-on-cart. Another case of a parent that I admire. At Lowes a father did the same thing, his kid kept a hand on the cart and walked beside the cart and Dad. Another father spent his time shouting ‘get back here’, over and over and over again, sometimes his kid returned, more often he ignored Dad. The simple instruction ‘keep your hand on the cart all the time’ is so powerful. It captures the kid — he knows now where he is to be, and there can’t be any whines or stories to get around the fact if he strays — you cannot ‘almost’ have a hand on the cart. In addition to keeping the kid in comfortable position for conversation as the parent pushes the cart, both parent and kid are practicing disciplined behavior. The exercise builds concentration and self-confidence as the family spends more time without having to correct the kid. The kid now has a job, and quickly masters that job. Very positive and powerful.

Today (Wednesday) Paul Harvey made a point of mentioning that Congress had voted against slaughter of horses for human consumption, but the USDA ordered three facilities to continue slaughtering, 88,000 head per year.

After looking at the USDA site, apparently Congress (the school of unintended consequences, never graduated a class) tried to pull a tree-hugger tactic — forbid using appropriated funds to pay for inspection of horses prior to slaughter. The warm-and-fuzzy people figured that would end the ability to slaughter horses. The reality is that the slaughter was still legal, and the USDA still legally bound to do the inspections. Their response is not to go around Congress’ intent, but to meet their legal requirements, but charging fees to inspect the horses before slaughter to cover expenses.

Congress’ action may have sounded good, but did not come close to ending slaughter of horses (for human consumption — dog food wasn’t affected). They apparently recognized they didn’t have the authority or support to come out and do something, whether or not you support slaughter. So instead they tried a weak, left-handed, devious bit of red tape to satisfy someone’s lobbyist. The result is that everyone in Congress gets to report ‘Re-elect me, I tried to save those horses from those evil horse-eaters’, without really having to offend those making a living selling horse overseas, offending the overseas markets buying the horse, or the majority of the horse industry that recognizes a need for a way to drain off unwanted and undesirable horses.

I personally never want to slaughter a horse. But I understand why the operations exist, and the necessary function they perform. 88,000 horses per year, maybe 1760 per state per year — that doesn’t sound like a lot of extra horses to accomodate. But most horse people have at *least* as many as they can afford — taking on more horses will take feed and money from other horses.

I understand many visitors to the DraftResource.com chat board have gone to the sales, and bought slaughter-bound horses, many with great success, some with heartbreaking failure. My cynical observation is that there seem to be a lot of people protesting the slaughter of horses (for human consumption) that are *not* taking on their share of the 88,000 horses a year that would need care. Every year. ‘Put up or shut up’ may be a poor man’s attempt at morality, but it still helps keep a lid on interference in other’s lives.

Enjoy.