kids and politics

With the upcoming presidential election we have had more discussions with the kids about politics in the past few months than ever before.  I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids.  Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.).  I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics.  Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.

My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you.  My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity.  The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs.  I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise.  It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though.  I know because I remember thinking that way.  It's just a natural, human inclination.

Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious.  We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion.  It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that.  Alas, many do.  Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.

I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions.  This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives.  I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid.  Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.

All of this just leads back to my original point.  I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.

stepping down

Just short of ten years ago I agreed to be an usher at our church. At the time it wasn't a big deal. I just had to pray for the offering every couple of weeks and manage the collection plate in my aisle.  In the time since the role morphed into more a position of greeting and directing people to empty seats.  This is not at all my forte, and since I'm otherwise very involved, I am backing out of this responsibility after this month.  That I have stayed in the role as long as I have is an example of why I am always hesitant to agree to commit to things, though.

Any time I am in a role of responsibility, even something as small as this, I don't feel the freedom to back out.  I am very well aware that in a lot of cases there will be no one else to step up, and few things make me feel more rotten than leaving someone else holding the bag.  Because of this, I usually view new commitments through a very long-term lens, and hem and haw before committing.

As I noted, I am not suited for the current ushering role in our church.  The job is not mentally difficult in the least, but the responsibilities are a serious chore for someone who is as introverted as I am.  It is not in my nature to approach people I don't know, get information about them, and ask others to make room for them in the row where they're sitting.  When I hear about the reasons visitors do not return to churches I wonder if it was because I was not outgoing enough for some folks to want to return.

Even so, the only reason I feel the freedom to step down from this specific role is that it has interfered with my other responsibilities.  Sometimes the kids are in service, but Golden has to be in the nursery and cannot watch them.  Sometimes someone wants to talk about the lesson after Sunday School and I have to rudely rush out.  There is always the specter of what to do when one of the kids is sick and I have to usher and Golden is on the schedule to help in the nursery.  Without those conflicts of interest I'd probably stay in the role out of a sense of duty or guilt, which is every bit as pathetic as it sounds.

So, I guess that means that it's time for someone a bit more extroverted than I am to step up.  I hope they do.

ten years ago...

Ten years ago today was my first day in my MBA program.  I'm at the age where I look back ten, fifteen, or twenty years a lot, and I'm struck by how those events feel both like yesterday and forever ago at the same time.  There were many times during my four-and-a-half years in the program that I questioned the wisdom of pursuing the degree, and ten years ago all of that work and all of those questions lay ahead of me.  It's just odd.

Another milestone I passed in the last year is the twenty-year anniversary of getting my first job in high school.  In fact, a couple of months ago I passed a the twenty-year milestone of my second job in high school, which I held concurrently with the first one until I went to college.

It used to be that any milestone I had like this only reached a few years back to when I was in high school and living with my parents, but those days are long past (about ten years past, to be precise).

I can't be the only person who does this.  Who else notes anniversaries of what was happening in your life one or two decades ago and asks where the time went?  Where did the time go?!

powerball

Recently, the Powerball lottery got up to some ridiculous level that causes a lot of people to want to gamble.  Usually when that happens someone in my office decides to buy a pool of tickets, and whoever contributes gets a share of any winnings.  I always go in for the price of one ticket for one reason and one reason only: insurance.

Like most things, my view on gambling is that it is not sin, but the attitudes a person brings into it are frequently sin.  So, for a lot of people gambling is sin because of why they gamble, or what gambling brings out in them.  In fact, I do believe it's difficult to gamble without a sinful attitude.  If I were to find myself daydreaming about never working again, or longing for whatever luxury items something like that would afford, or risking my family's stability, those would likely indicate underlying problems.  I hope in that instance I would avoid participating, because that would be a sign of something wrong with my motives.

What I don't want to happen, and what I am genuinely concerned about, is for everyone else in my office to win then quit on the same day.  Being the last guy left in the department would be an absolute nightmare.  So, I throw in the minimum so that if that sort of thing happens I have a little more freedom to decide what to do.

Truth be told, I don't really want to win the lottery.  Sure, I would love the money, but the problems that would come from getting the money in this way would probably outweigh that.  There are a number of people in my life who have moral issues with this, so it would open multiple uncomfortable conversations.  Then, there would be pressure to contribute to specific causes, and while it would be great to have that opportunity, it would open up a lot of saying no to disappointed people as well.

Another concern I have has its basis in pride.  The odds of winning the lottery are outlandish, and I don't want people to think I that I bought tickets with a serious hope of winning.  The joke goes that the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math, and a prideful part of me doesn't want others to associate me with that.  How could I not if I were known to have won the lottery?

So, while I try to make sure I'm technically covered from the bad results of everyone winning the lottery at a cost I'll gladly pay, I'm not actually hoping for us to win.  The good news is that, unlike most people playing the lottery, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of what I am hoping for.

tabula rasa

Several years ago I learned about the concept of tabula rasa, which asserts that a baby is born with a mind that is largely a blank slate.  Personality, behavioral tendencies, intellectual capacity, etc are all things that spring out of the environment a child is raised in rather than from genetics.

I have heard from various sources that research done in the last two or three decades has largely discredited the idea of tabula rasa to the point where it is not a seriously held position in academic circles now, though not long ago this was not the case.  Having had two kids I have to strongly question how anyone who raised more than one child ever believed in tabula rasa.

While our kids are still young--just seven and nine--it is striking and unavoidable to see where specific aspects of our kids' drives and personalities are not only unique, but have been that way from birth.  In fact, I have a very difficult time believing that someone could have kids and not notice this, as I see this uniqueness in a lot of the other kids I am occasionally around as well.  Kids with strong personalities always had strong personalities, and they often have siblings with completely different personalities, though they grew up in the same household.  Things like birth order play a part, but only as an outgrowth of what they were from the start.

If it is obvious to a parent that the foundations of our kids' personality is due to nature rather than nurture--and I have definitely heard other parents observe this as well--why was this not obvious to the academic world for a large percentage of the twentieth century?  Do (or did, since this idea is no longer widely held) academics in psychology/psychiatry simply not spend time with and observe their own families?  It's baffling!

boredom

When I was seven I remember wondering how I would ever outgrow Sesame Street.  I knew it would happen.  I could see that my parents, and other adults for that matter, only had a passing interest in it, but for the life of me I could not grasp what would change about me such that the show would no longer hold my interest.

A few years later my parents worked for a school on an Indian reservation (no one--even Native people--ever called it a "Native American reservation" in my recollection) they used to have a week of sermons at the school called spiritual emphasis week.  Something that those who have not spent much time on a reservation might not know is that time has a different meaning there.  Starting and ending times for a lot of events on the reservation are more generalizations than rules, and so many of the sermons would go hours long.  I distinctly remember sitting through a two-hour (or three-hour... they did occasionally go that long) sermon at nine years old wondering what would change about me for me to be as interested as my parents appeared to be in the sermon's contents.

Even today, I am often struck by how some forms of entertainment that others genuinely enjoy are painfully boring to me, and how many things that deeply fascinate me hold no interest in most anyone else.  What is it that drives fascination and boredom?  That question has been in my mind for at least the last thirty years.

I think there are three things that cause things to be boring.

1. Something is too simple.

Why do I find most kids' entertainment boring?  Easy, it's because there's nothing unexpected or engaging in it.  Bar none, if a children's show or movie is entertaining to me it is because something has been added to it that goes beyond it's primary audience.

2. Something is too complicated.

Many subjects are boring to me merely because I don't even possess the knowledge necessary knowledge to know how to be engaged.  By definition, it is difficult for me to provide good examples because the moment I have enough insight to cite an example I have stepped toward the issue not being so complicated. I do suspect that this is the main reason I am bored by much of what is considered high literature.

3 (or 2b). It doesn't speak to my experiences in life or the needs I have that drive me.

This is sort of like #2, but the reason for lacking understanding is not due to how complicated the issue is, but rather my not being equipped with fundamental background to appreciate the thing.

The best example I have of boredom from a lack of fundamental understanding is Pride and Prejudice.  I tried very hard to care about the book and the movie about ten years ago, but I just couldn't.  I lost interest in the book about four chapters in, and I could not connect with the characters on the most basic of levels simply because I had no fundamental understanding of what drove the main character.  I even got the sense that the things I sort of understood about the main character I understood wrong.

One of my pet peeves is when I am expected to enjoy something when I do not have the underlying drives or experiences that lend value to that thing.  I suspect that most other people feel similarly.

So, in order for something not to be boring to a person it has to reside in their window of knowledge where it isn't too dumbed-down to drive engagement or too complicated to make sense.  It has to also have some basis in the audience's experience and fundamental needs.

So, what do you think?  Are there other things that cause things to be boring?  Have you been as fascinated with this as I, or do you find this whole line of thinking boring in and of itself?  What is so boring to you it is painful?

wars versus trek

For whatever reason, many of those who love either Star Wars or Star Trek seem to have either disdain or condescension for fanboys of the other franchise.  Throughout the years I have heard many arguments between those who think that Star Wars is the epitome of storytelling and those who think that Star Trek provides great intellectual depth and something to aspire to as the human race.  I don't understand the debate at all, though, because neither series really should be considered part of the same genre.

Can you imagine for a moment people arguing about whether The View or Sportscenter is better?  They're both popular shows where hosts sit behind a desk, present news, and pontificate upon it's significance, right?  So that has to mean their comparable enough to debate which one is qualitatively better.  Of course that's ridiculous, and I think it's equally ridiculous to argue about Star Wars versus Star Trek.

While both franchises are Science Fiction story lines that have garnered rabid fan-bases, that is where their similarities end.  Their central purposes for being are entirely unrelated.

Star Wars is, and always has been, meant to be classic archetypal story that happens to be set in a futuristic setting (yet in the past and far, far away).  The setting is not supposed to be what drives the story.  The setting simply provides the surrounding details for a story that could just as easily, though less entertainingly, be set in a less exotic locale.

Star Trek is, and always has been, an optimistic view of what humanity could achieve, and what humanity could discover through those achievements.  The setting not only drives the story, it is the story.  An episode of Star Trek (or one of the movies) is presented with a hint of, "See what the crew of The Enterprise is discovering and experiencing?  We could discover and experience that too if we commit to technological advancement and supplanting Capitalism!"

The primary reason I have been thinking about this is that I have always been torn when people argue about these two franchises.  There have probably been times in my life when I would have favored one over the other, but never by much.  I greatly enjoy both of them on the right day and in the right mood, but I have never been a fanboy of either.  Both have great strengths and both have extraordinary flaws.  There is very little appropriate way to compare them, however, and do either justice.