I know I visited this issue a few weeks back after the court case. But this is a different element of the all-inclusive Freedom of Speech. As anyone who lives outside of a cave would know, radio host Don Imus got in a world of trouble recently for calling the Rutgers University girls basketball team a bunch of "Nappy Headed Hos." This led to much public uproar, calls for his ouster, MSNBC dropping the telecast of his show, CBS canceling his show on radio, and having the Rev. Al Sharpton come swooping in to "help" facilitate an apology meeting between Imus and the Rutgers team.
I am not going to defend Imus It was a horrible thing to say - regardless of the racial element of it. I don't know what context could have predicated a comment like that. I have a hard time believing that there IS an appropriate context for that to be said. But, I get a little touchy about this stuff. We see people make derogatory comments about gays, blacks, arabs, hispanics and get raked across the coals. They get fired or suspended or forced to go through counseling and therapy to "uncover the source of their hate." But, media people can make horrible and derogatory comments about men, whites, and Christians and float away on a cloud with nary a problem in the world. You don't believe me? We have seen Isaiah Washington, Tim Hardaway, and Don Imus publicly crucified for their comments, but Rosie O'Donnell has likened fundamental Christians to Islamic terrorists on more than one occasion and walked away unscathed. Media people slam Elizabeth Hasselbeck from The View for her conservative Christian views and we don't hear a peep. And how exactly were Imus' comments any different than the filth that Howard Stern punches out every day?
So, Imus, who was lambasted by the liberal media has now found himself a defender - in the aforementioned Rosie O'Donnell. She says she is afraid that she is going to become a target. Huh? How did that jump get made? She - the massive liberal mouthpiece - has begun publicly wondering if she is next as a target of the Conservative Conspiracy. Wait a minute - wasn't she one of the ones going after Imus? Wasn't it her buddies leading that charge? How did she spin that so quickly.
In addition, the gay movement has also seized upon this opportunity to point out that there is nothing on the books to protect them from "hate crimes" - like the "crime" of Imus' outburst. One prominent gay blogger went on a big rampage about how Imus got fired, but people like Mel Gibson, Isaiah Washington, and Tim Hardaway did not because their outbursts were at gays. So, now they are again pushing for support to be included in the Federal Hate Crime laws. If you speak out against homosexuality, you could be seen as guilty of a hate crime.
This is where I get confused. According to the media, we want to have the freedom of speech to bash conservatives, Christians, Republicans - and of course to look at porn. But, the Freedom of Speech does NOT cover bashing minorities or homosexuals. From what I understood from all of my history classes in college (of which there were many), the Freedom of Speech was intended to give people the right to speak without fear of government reprisal - as long as it was not damaging to others (ala the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument). So, where is that line? When does it become damaging to others?
I firmly believe that hateful and incendiary comments about minorities should not be allowed. I don't know if I would classify Imus' comment as hateful or just the idiotic ramblings of a very old man. But what exactly is a hateful comment? If I stand up and say something like "I hate this group," is that worthy of arrest? And why is that different if you replace the words "this group" with "religious people." In addition, are you honestly going to tell me that porn is NOT damaging?
If I am allowed to have the freedom to speak my mind for a moment, I think this whole thing has gotten out of hand. I think we have gotten so ultra-sensitive about stuff that it has actually made the situation worse. Now, instead of just writing off Isaiah or Imus, we have a huge national crisis where everyone has to wade into the problem - including one of the following: Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, former President Jimmy Carter, Sean Penn. Instead of teaching our children how to handle idiots who make stupid comments, we have taught them to litigate or overreact. When you look back on the racist comments of the past, they are so much more severe and ugly than the ones everyone is getting so hyper about. Think about it. What would the civil rights activists of the 60's have done with Imus' comment? They probably would have shook their heads and thought he was an idiot - and then dealt with the real problems like lynchings and getting the ability to vote. I think we have protected things that have no business being protected (porn) and actually we have encouraged people to be weak by never forcing them to deal with unpleasant comments.
I am a big fat smart white Christian male who works for a ministry who fights porn. Do you know how many rude comments I have heard over the years? The number of times people have said things about me or one of my groups that was hateful? I have been called nerd, freak, geek, fatso, tubby, "big guy," lard butt, whitey honky, Jesus freak, Fundamentalist terrorist, lazy, stupid... Should I go on? When is there going to be a national telethon to support me in my pain? When are the powerful in Hollywood going to go raging into the night to get those people fired? Oh, wait, they WERE those people. I forgot.
In the end, I'm glad that Imus got canned. I thought he was a ninny. But there are people out there that make his ridiculous comment seem like a punch line. This whole Freedom of Speech mess is only going to get worse. If I may be so bold as to say that.
Apr 16, 2007
Apr 11, 2007
Three Weeks
It has been three weeks since my last post. A lot has happened in that time, but unfortunately none of it on this blog. I'll get some housekeeping out of the way, and then I promise there will be a couple more posts in the next couple of days.
Speaking of posts, part of the big reason that I have not been posting regularly is because I have been setting up and maintaining Defender Ministries' new blog and new podcast. They are more time consuming than I thought. I also have been developing our new Disciple Now style weekend curriculum "Operation Isaiah." Things are moving pretty quickly with Defender, which is great after the barren wasteland that was the end of 2006. Here's hoping and praying we stay super busy.
Speaking of super busy, movie season is almost upon us. I saw two movies in the theater during my blog hiatus. I have reviews for both Meet the Robinsons and Shooter on my Rotten Tomatoes page. I also tossed one up there for the older 16 Blocks that I caught on HBO. There are some major events coming up in the next few weeks. But the biggest may be May 4 - the opening of the Summer Movie Season. I cannot wait. Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, Oceans Thirteen, Pirates 3, Harry Potter 5, Rush Hour 3, Bourne 3, Die Hard 4, Fantastic Four 2. Plus the non-sequels Ratatouille, Underdog, Transformers, Surfs Up, and Simpsons. Awesome. Of course, only two of those films are original and not based on something else. Why? Because that is what we like. So shut up Oscar bait, America has spoken.
Speaking of America . . . uh . . . speaking, I have tried to refrain from letting my true feelings out about the current American Idol season. I was going to do a week by week review of it, but when I realized some things, I knew it would be a bad idea. I would just get to angry and ugly. Why? Well, Sanjaya is going to win. It is funny how AI producers have tried to play off the influence of web sites like votefortheworst.com, but the fact of the matter is that they have a HUGE impact. And now that the idiot Howard Stern and his moron buddy Perez Hilton have taken up the fight, it is a foregone conclusion. At this point, Sanjaya could get up there with his hair in curlers, rip his shirt open, starts rubbing cocoa butter on himself and sing in a collection of grunts, tongue clicks, and the word "me go winky some night time" and still win. And Haley Scarnato will probably be in the top three or four - largely because she realized that showing her legs and wearing see through jiggle tops is much smarter than singing well. If you think I'm wrong, go ask Gina Glockson, Chris Sligh, and Phil Stacey (who will go home tonight). At this point, the only thing that Sanjaya could do to get booted was make a racial slur.
Speaking of racial slurs, it appears that Don Imus has reaped the whirlwind for his comments about the Rutgers' ladies' basketball team. I certainly do not condone his actions. But, I think there are some points to be made about the incident. That is going to come in another post, though.
Speaking of another post, I plan on putting a couple up this week to make up for lost time.
Speaking of lost time, tonight's episode is supposed to be one of the best ever. I've really enjoyed it since it returned from break, and I really like some of what is going on with it. We have really stripped down our viewing from the logjam of the Fall. Now, it is 24, How I Met Your Mother, American Idol, Jericho, Lost, The Office, Scrubs, 30 Rock, and Heroes (when it comes back). That may not seem stripped down, but it is. And, no, I could care less about any show HBO puts out.
Speaking of not caring, check back soon for more posts.
Speaking of posts, part of the big reason that I have not been posting regularly is because I have been setting up and maintaining Defender Ministries' new blog and new podcast. They are more time consuming than I thought. I also have been developing our new Disciple Now style weekend curriculum "Operation Isaiah." Things are moving pretty quickly with Defender, which is great after the barren wasteland that was the end of 2006. Here's hoping and praying we stay super busy.
Speaking of super busy, movie season is almost upon us. I saw two movies in the theater during my blog hiatus. I have reviews for both Meet the Robinsons and Shooter on my Rotten Tomatoes page. I also tossed one up there for the older 16 Blocks that I caught on HBO. There are some major events coming up in the next few weeks. But the biggest may be May 4 - the opening of the Summer Movie Season. I cannot wait. Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, Oceans Thirteen, Pirates 3, Harry Potter 5, Rush Hour 3, Bourne 3, Die Hard 4, Fantastic Four 2. Plus the non-sequels Ratatouille, Underdog, Transformers, Surfs Up, and Simpsons. Awesome. Of course, only two of those films are original and not based on something else. Why? Because that is what we like. So shut up Oscar bait, America has spoken.
Speaking of America . . . uh . . . speaking, I have tried to refrain from letting my true feelings out about the current American Idol season. I was going to do a week by week review of it, but when I realized some things, I knew it would be a bad idea. I would just get to angry and ugly. Why? Well, Sanjaya is going to win. It is funny how AI producers have tried to play off the influence of web sites like votefortheworst.com, but the fact of the matter is that they have a HUGE impact. And now that the idiot Howard Stern and his moron buddy Perez Hilton have taken up the fight, it is a foregone conclusion. At this point, Sanjaya could get up there with his hair in curlers, rip his shirt open, starts rubbing cocoa butter on himself and sing in a collection of grunts, tongue clicks, and the word "me go winky some night time" and still win. And Haley Scarnato will probably be in the top three or four - largely because she realized that showing her legs and wearing see through jiggle tops is much smarter than singing well. If you think I'm wrong, go ask Gina Glockson, Chris Sligh, and Phil Stacey (who will go home tonight). At this point, the only thing that Sanjaya could do to get booted was make a racial slur.
Speaking of racial slurs, it appears that Don Imus has reaped the whirlwind for his comments about the Rutgers' ladies' basketball team. I certainly do not condone his actions. But, I think there are some points to be made about the incident. That is going to come in another post, though.
Speaking of another post, I plan on putting a couple up this week to make up for lost time.
Speaking of lost time, tonight's episode is supposed to be one of the best ever. I've really enjoyed it since it returned from break, and I really like some of what is going on with it. We have really stripped down our viewing from the logjam of the Fall. Now, it is 24, How I Met Your Mother, American Idol, Jericho, Lost, The Office, Scrubs, 30 Rock, and Heroes (when it comes back). That may not seem stripped down, but it is. And, no, I could care less about any show HBO puts out.
Speaking of not caring, check back soon for more posts.
Mar 22, 2007
Yes, I'm Irate
I've been writing less serious posts lately, but today is different. I know myself pretty well, and I know that when I get worked up, I can get to be a pretty unpleasant person. Well, when I checked the news online today, I started to get heated up. Here is what I saw:
It was not the first story or anything like that. It was the sixth headline in the list next to the main big story about John Edwards running for President even though his wife has incurable cancer. I found that minorly ironic, that he is running for President of a country with an incurable cancer as well.
I was not surprised that this court decision happened. I had read about the possibility a few months back on Wired.com - another bastion of "freedom" and "enlightenment." Basically, this judge ruled that it is unconstitutional - under that mysterious "right to privacy" that is not listed in the Bill of Rights, and the nebulous Freedom of Speech - for the government to consider it illegal for websites to expose children to material deemed "harmful to minors" by "community standards." The long and short of it: the government can no longer force websites to have age-verification when they have explicit material on it. The people who started all of this was a collection of "Sexual health" sites, salon.com, and "other web sites" - backed by our friends at the ACLU. (I wonder who those "other sites" were.)
The line that made me so angry I wanted to go up to Pennsylvania and punch the judge was this beauty: "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if (free speech) protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection." Hang on a second....yeah....I can see where he's coming from. It is definitely more harmful to the minors of this country to violate their mythical freedom of privacy and "free speech" that to keep them from having to see sexually explicit sites. You are absolutely right, Senior U. S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. It is waaaay more important that my three and five year old do not have their right to free speech threatened than to keep them from accidentally finding a website with obscene pictures on it that is masquerading as a kids' site.
I mean after all, violating a minor's free speech would probably destroy them and make them a quivering shell of a person. It would make them less than human. That wrong would burn into their brain forever, so that it would pop up for decades. It would give them the wrong understanding about what a woman is supposed to be. It would make them compromise their high standards, and settle for digitally enhanced frauds. It would damage their intimacy with others and with God. It would keep them from being able to connect to their spouses. It would give them oppressive guilt and shame. It would stunt them emotionally. It would enter them into addictive behaviors that would take intense counseling to escape. It would put their marriages at risk. It would probably escalate into getting into fascination with illegal and immoral activities. It would make them come face to face with urges and desires that they have not grown up enough to understand.
I mean, pornography seems mild compared to the damage that hampering a minor's freedom of speech would cause. Porn doesn't do all of that. It's just harmless fun. Just something everyone does. No big deal. I'm glad we have the ACLU and Senior U. S. District Judge Lowell Reed, Jr. to set us straight. I mean, after all, "parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech." We can't have that - people's free speech being limited. Especially when it comes to free speech that looks an awful lot like a naked woman. Why, that would be criminal.
[If this post seemed a wee bit sardonic, just remember - it's just my freedom of speech.]
It was not the first story or anything like that. It was the sixth headline in the list next to the main big story about John Edwards running for President even though his wife has incurable cancer. I found that minorly ironic, that he is running for President of a country with an incurable cancer as well.
I was not surprised that this court decision happened. I had read about the possibility a few months back on Wired.com - another bastion of "freedom" and "enlightenment." Basically, this judge ruled that it is unconstitutional - under that mysterious "right to privacy" that is not listed in the Bill of Rights, and the nebulous Freedom of Speech - for the government to consider it illegal for websites to expose children to material deemed "harmful to minors" by "community standards." The long and short of it: the government can no longer force websites to have age-verification when they have explicit material on it. The people who started all of this was a collection of "Sexual health" sites, salon.com, and "other web sites" - backed by our friends at the ACLU. (I wonder who those "other sites" were.)
The line that made me so angry I wanted to go up to Pennsylvania and punch the judge was this beauty: "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if (free speech) protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection." Hang on a second....yeah....I can see where he's coming from. It is definitely more harmful to the minors of this country to violate their mythical freedom of privacy and "free speech" that to keep them from having to see sexually explicit sites. You are absolutely right, Senior U. S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. It is waaaay more important that my three and five year old do not have their right to free speech threatened than to keep them from accidentally finding a website with obscene pictures on it that is masquerading as a kids' site.
I mean after all, violating a minor's free speech would probably destroy them and make them a quivering shell of a person. It would make them less than human. That wrong would burn into their brain forever, so that it would pop up for decades. It would give them the wrong understanding about what a woman is supposed to be. It would make them compromise their high standards, and settle for digitally enhanced frauds. It would damage their intimacy with others and with God. It would keep them from being able to connect to their spouses. It would give them oppressive guilt and shame. It would stunt them emotionally. It would enter them into addictive behaviors that would take intense counseling to escape. It would put their marriages at risk. It would probably escalate into getting into fascination with illegal and immoral activities. It would make them come face to face with urges and desires that they have not grown up enough to understand.
I mean, pornography seems mild compared to the damage that hampering a minor's freedom of speech would cause. Porn doesn't do all of that. It's just harmless fun. Just something everyone does. No big deal. I'm glad we have the ACLU and Senior U. S. District Judge Lowell Reed, Jr. to set us straight. I mean, after all, "parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech." We can't have that - people's free speech being limited. Especially when it comes to free speech that looks an awful lot like a naked woman. Why, that would be criminal.
[If this post seemed a wee bit sardonic, just remember - it's just my freedom of speech.]
Mar 18, 2007
Revisionist Aladdin History
I have wanted to write this goofy post for a while, but have keep putting it off. In light of the announcement by Disney that they are going to be adding to their Princess line, I decided now was indeed the time. But first, I have a few housekeeping items.
Think back to the original movie, since that is only one many of you have seen. The basic premise is that Aladdin is this street rat, who is homeless and lives with a monkey. He has to steal to get by. On the other end of town is Princess Jasmine who lives in the palace with her father - the Sultan. He has an evil advisor, Jafar, that is secretly pushing his own agenda of taking over the world. There also is a collection of evil and vicious guards that roam the town and do all things rotten.
Now, it is readily apparent (in this movie and in subsequent ones) that the poverty is rampant. Yet the Sultan and his daughter live alone with servants in this oppulent palace - probably paid for by the poor residents. There are parties and parades to celebrate the joys of the Sultan's family. However, that is the only interaction that we see between the Royal Family and the people. And this continues throughout the series. Even after Jasmine and Aladdin are in a position to change things, they do not institute sweeping changes that would benefit their people. There are still poor orphans running around, stealing fruit to survive.
In addition, the Sultan is the one who hired Jafar, and who never even wised up to his villainy. Now, we have seen this a lot through the movies, so we can sort of write it off I guess. But the entire guard system is corrupt and cruel. Even after Jafar is gone, the Sultan does not cleanse that group. Aladdin, who has numerous run ins with these guys, also does nothing about the guards. We see them pop up time and again - even after Aladdin should have been able to get rid of them. This is ignoring the fact that Apu the monkey and Iago the parrot and Carpet the flying carpet are given access to the rulers - and offer much advice that is followed blindly. Oh yeah, there also is a blue, wise-cracking, shape-shifting, nearly-omnipotent genie that helps the rulers, but does not use his powers to help those outside the palace walls -- except in his expert parade-planning.
So, what do we have here? We have a royal aristocracy that lives in lavish luxury at the expense of (and while ignoring the plight of) their poverty-stricken people. The government and the law-enforcement system are thoroughly corrupt, rife with nepotism, and run by literal animals. The Princess we are supposed to admire and offer as an example to our daughters will often try to assist people of other countries (but usually ends up allowing the genie or animals to come up with the solution), while completely ignoring her own people. And Aladdin, who comes from the street and is a true rags to riches story, does not try to help his own people rise above their squallor. Instead, he worries about stuff like finding his thieving father, becoming chief advisor, and talking to beasts. Perhaps he's the most to blame.
So after reading that, it makes you look at that movie in a different light, eh? Well, either that or you are thoroughly convinced I'm a wacko.
- My last post, about the smackdown between my kids, got some interesting responses. Of course, not on this site since no one really comments here. Well, it seems that my brilliant decision to let "the kids work it out" was a temporary victory. I have still had to spend much time correcting both "annoying your sister" and "hitting your brother." Oh well, at least the specific story was funny.
- I updated my side information - including books I'm reading. I am going to do some more in depth reviews of those books as I finish them. So try to control your anticipation.
- A few weeks back we found out we are expecting our third child. Woo hooo. Surprise! We don't know much yet other than the fact the baby is due in October.
Think back to the original movie, since that is only one many of you have seen. The basic premise is that Aladdin is this street rat, who is homeless and lives with a monkey. He has to steal to get by. On the other end of town is Princess Jasmine who lives in the palace with her father - the Sultan. He has an evil advisor, Jafar, that is secretly pushing his own agenda of taking over the world. There also is a collection of evil and vicious guards that roam the town and do all things rotten.
Now, it is readily apparent (in this movie and in subsequent ones) that the poverty is rampant. Yet the Sultan and his daughter live alone with servants in this oppulent palace - probably paid for by the poor residents. There are parties and parades to celebrate the joys of the Sultan's family. However, that is the only interaction that we see between the Royal Family and the people. And this continues throughout the series. Even after Jasmine and Aladdin are in a position to change things, they do not institute sweeping changes that would benefit their people. There are still poor orphans running around, stealing fruit to survive.
In addition, the Sultan is the one who hired Jafar, and who never even wised up to his villainy. Now, we have seen this a lot through the movies, so we can sort of write it off I guess. But the entire guard system is corrupt and cruel. Even after Jafar is gone, the Sultan does not cleanse that group. Aladdin, who has numerous run ins with these guys, also does nothing about the guards. We see them pop up time and again - even after Aladdin should have been able to get rid of them. This is ignoring the fact that Apu the monkey and Iago the parrot and Carpet the flying carpet are given access to the rulers - and offer much advice that is followed blindly. Oh yeah, there also is a blue, wise-cracking, shape-shifting, nearly-omnipotent genie that helps the rulers, but does not use his powers to help those outside the palace walls -- except in his expert parade-planning.
So, what do we have here? We have a royal aristocracy that lives in lavish luxury at the expense of (and while ignoring the plight of) their poverty-stricken people. The government and the law-enforcement system are thoroughly corrupt, rife with nepotism, and run by literal animals. The Princess we are supposed to admire and offer as an example to our daughters will often try to assist people of other countries (but usually ends up allowing the genie or animals to come up with the solution), while completely ignoring her own people. And Aladdin, who comes from the street and is a true rags to riches story, does not try to help his own people rise above their squallor. Instead, he worries about stuff like finding his thieving father, becoming chief advisor, and talking to beasts. Perhaps he's the most to blame.
So after reading that, it makes you look at that movie in a different light, eh? Well, either that or you are thoroughly convinced I'm a wacko.
Mar 10, 2007
Good Girl
Well, I have pretty much disappeared since the Oscars. Sorry about that - for those people whose very existence depends on my blog (poor pathetic souls). Things have been so crazy around here that I couldn't bring myself to spend time posting. But that will be remedied RIGHT NOW!
It is fun having kids. Well at least some of the time - other times it makes you want to jump off a cliff into a pile of bayonet bushes. As most of you know, I have a five year old son and a three year old daughter. They act like they are twins. Many people ask us that - since they are similar in height and they play together all the time. Sometimes, the playing gets too rough or intense, and then we have to hear an exchange similar to this:
Heather and I are sitting in the computer room. We hear a video in the living room, and the kids playing. Suddenly we hear...
WHACK! AAAAAGHHH! (running steps)
BOY CHILD: Mommy, Nat hit me.
MOMMY: Nat! Come in here!
DADDY: Joey, why did Nat hit you? Were you messing with her?
BOY CHILD: (as innocent as a dove) No, I was just sitting there and she hit me.
MOMMY: Nat! Get in here! Now!
GIRL CHILD: Yes, Mommy.
MOMMY: Nat, did you hit your brother?
GIRL CHILD: (as sweet as candy) No.
DADDY: Nat, Joey said you hit him. Did you hit him?
GIRL CHILD: (sweet as honey coated candy) No, Mommy. I didn't. He was mean to me.
BOY CHILD: (innocent and offended at the accusation) She's lying. She hit me. I wasn't doing anything.
Mommy takes Girl Child and begins to interrogate her, finally forcing a confession. Daddy takes Boy Child and grills him, finding out that he was standing in front of the television and sticking his hands in her face - which led to the wallop.
This same scene plays out all the time - sometimes numerous times a day. Boy antagonizes girl. Girl gets irritated. Girls punches boy. Boy starts crying. Boy runs and tells parent. Girl denies entire thing. So today, we actually had this whole thing happen several times. Then we went to Publix to get food for dinner and stuff. The kids are sitting together in one of the fancy pants carts they have for kids, eating their free cookies. They are all excited because we are going to have a picnic for dinner in the living room. Boy Child is getting all hyper and starts messing with Girl Chld. He is being annoying, waving his hands in front of her face. I'm watching this whole thing occur while standing next to the canned fruits. I'm about to stop break away from the Oregon blueberries and correct the Boy Child. Suddenly, WHAP.
Girl Child has just calmly looked over at Boy Child, decided she had enough of that junk, and flat out backhand punched him in the chest. His first response is shock, followed by rubbing the spot, and then he looks back at us and starts to go into "rat mode." Now, I know I should be all over Girl Child's back for slugging Boy Child. But I have watched the entire thing, and for the first time actually observed the annoyance take place. So I tell her, "Don't hit your brother." And I tell him, "Don't be annoying to your sister." Then I look at Heather and start laughing.
I've wanted girls my whole life, but I also wanted them to be tough enough to be able to stand up for themselves. So there actually was a kind of pride that my girl punched her brother. Heather was convinced that I was gaining too much pleasure from the whole thing. I'm sure she was right. Well, a few aisles over, on the hair care aisle, the Boy Child was getting worked up again. He was messing with Girl Child, getting in her face, waving his hands around. I looked at him, and in a moment of parental wisdom said, "If you don't knock it off, your sister is going to hit you again. And I'm not going to stop her."
Heather looked at me again and shook her head. "You're bad." I was thinking, hey this could work. Boy Child kept on being a turkey, I warned him again. About a minute later, BAM. Girl Child hit him in the face. He looked at me and I said, "Told you." I know, I'm horrible. Know what? He sat very still and behaved the rest of the time in the store, and so did she. Maybe they just needed to work it out on their own. All I know, is that I can't wait until she turns into a teenager and some idiot boy tries to be a punk. She'll calmly look over at him, and WHAM!
Good girl.
It is fun having kids. Well at least some of the time - other times it makes you want to jump off a cliff into a pile of bayonet bushes. As most of you know, I have a five year old son and a three year old daughter. They act like they are twins. Many people ask us that - since they are similar in height and they play together all the time. Sometimes, the playing gets too rough or intense, and then we have to hear an exchange similar to this:
Heather and I are sitting in the computer room. We hear a video in the living room, and the kids playing. Suddenly we hear...
WHACK! AAAAAGHHH! (running steps)
BOY CHILD: Mommy, Nat hit me.
MOMMY: Nat! Come in here!
DADDY: Joey, why did Nat hit you? Were you messing with her?
BOY CHILD: (as innocent as a dove) No, I was just sitting there and she hit me.
MOMMY: Nat! Get in here! Now!
GIRL CHILD: Yes, Mommy.
MOMMY: Nat, did you hit your brother?
GIRL CHILD: (as sweet as candy) No.
DADDY: Nat, Joey said you hit him. Did you hit him?
GIRL CHILD: (sweet as honey coated candy) No, Mommy. I didn't. He was mean to me.
BOY CHILD: (innocent and offended at the accusation) She's lying. She hit me. I wasn't doing anything.
Mommy takes Girl Child and begins to interrogate her, finally forcing a confession. Daddy takes Boy Child and grills him, finding out that he was standing in front of the television and sticking his hands in her face - which led to the wallop.
This same scene plays out all the time - sometimes numerous times a day. Boy antagonizes girl. Girl gets irritated. Girls punches boy. Boy starts crying. Boy runs and tells parent. Girl denies entire thing. So today, we actually had this whole thing happen several times. Then we went to Publix to get food for dinner and stuff. The kids are sitting together in one of the fancy pants carts they have for kids, eating their free cookies. They are all excited because we are going to have a picnic for dinner in the living room. Boy Child is getting all hyper and starts messing with Girl Chld. He is being annoying, waving his hands in front of her face. I'm watching this whole thing occur while standing next to the canned fruits. I'm about to stop break away from the Oregon blueberries and correct the Boy Child. Suddenly, WHAP.
Girl Child has just calmly looked over at Boy Child, decided she had enough of that junk, and flat out backhand punched him in the chest. His first response is shock, followed by rubbing the spot, and then he looks back at us and starts to go into "rat mode." Now, I know I should be all over Girl Child's back for slugging Boy Child. But I have watched the entire thing, and for the first time actually observed the annoyance take place. So I tell her, "Don't hit your brother." And I tell him, "Don't be annoying to your sister." Then I look at Heather and start laughing.
I've wanted girls my whole life, but I also wanted them to be tough enough to be able to stand up for themselves. So there actually was a kind of pride that my girl punched her brother. Heather was convinced that I was gaining too much pleasure from the whole thing. I'm sure she was right. Well, a few aisles over, on the hair care aisle, the Boy Child was getting worked up again. He was messing with Girl Child, getting in her face, waving his hands around. I looked at him, and in a moment of parental wisdom said, "If you don't knock it off, your sister is going to hit you again. And I'm not going to stop her."
Heather looked at me again and shook her head. "You're bad." I was thinking, hey this could work. Boy Child kept on being a turkey, I warned him again. About a minute later, BAM. Girl Child hit him in the face. He looked at me and I said, "Told you." I know, I'm horrible. Know what? He sat very still and behaved the rest of the time in the store, and so did she. Maybe they just needed to work it out on their own. All I know, is that I can't wait until she turns into a teenager and some idiot boy tries to be a punk. She'll calmly look over at him, and WHAM!
Good girl.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)