How Far Can You Swim?

My wife and I were skimming happily across the waves in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Thailand when we hit a large wave. We both fell off the Jet-Ski. I was a little embarrassed, but not particularly concerned at first. I’d simply swim over to the Jet-ski, and we’d re-board – no big deal. After all, I was only 27 years old, and thus immortal.

As I swam, the Jet-ski puttered along faster than I could swim. It did not have the safety switch shut-off that modern Jet-skis have. It took me only a few seconds to figure out that I could not catch it. We were going to have to swim to shore. I waved toward the shore, but I could barely make out the buildings, and I couldn’t discern people at all.

“Well hon, how far can you swim?” I said to my wife.

“I dunno,” she looked a little worried, though she was trying to appear cheerful.

“Lie on your back and put your hands on my shoulders. I think we’re about a half mile from shore. I know can swim a mile by myself. (We had done this in Navy flight training.) I think I can swim a half mile with you.”

I tried not to think of it, but there were sharks in these waters, and we certainly looked like a couple of tasty, floundering fish more than healthy humans. I was also pretty sure we were more than a mile from the beach.

I had swum several minutes, when I heard the sound of another Jet-ski approaching. It was a guy from the rental shop. He had scanned the ocean with binoculars when we didn’t return by the expected time. He saw the empty Jet-ski, and headed toward us.

He picked me up and took me to my empty Jet-ski. I went back for my wife, and we rode slowly and carefully to shore.

That was 1972, the last time I rode a Jet-ski. Maybe it's time to try it again.

Economy Car Analogy

No doubt you’ve heard car references to “driving the economy off a cliff,” or “driving into a ditch.” Well, here’s my analogy.

You could think of our economy like a car with two drivers – government and private industry. The government controls the brake pedal. Private industry controls the accelerator. Both can see where the car is going, and both control the steering wheel; however, the government is stronger, so the car ultimately goes where the government wants it to go, unless they graciously allow private industry to drive.

When private industry sees that the car is headed in the wrong direction, it takes its foot off the gas, and the economy slows down. Unemployment goes up, business slows down, spending slows, exports go down, and people tend to hang onto their money. No amount of pressing the brake pedal or turning the steering wheel will make the car go any faster. Eventually, the car will come to a halt, though with the economy, this can take years. That’s what’s happening now.

When private industry thinks the car is going in the right direction, it presses on the accelerator and the car picks up speed. Business is good, jobs are plentiful, exports are up, and life is good.

Since the government only controls the brakes, it can’t make the car speed up. Government can only slow it down. Government can create unemployment, destroy jobs, stop growth, and stop exports, but only private industry can make the economy speed up.

So, in my opinion, all the rhetoric in Washington about government creating jobs and stimulating the economy is just empty promises and rhetoric. We have ample evidence that it doesn’t work. The government’s foot is permanently on the brake – not the accelerator.

The only way government can help is to get its foot off the brake, let go of the wheel, and allow private industry to propel us to a recovery.

Large Numbers

You may have heard of our “Large Number” difficulty. Human beings can all relate to numbers like 5, 100, 30,000 or so, but when the numbers reach a billion or a trillion, we sort of go blank. I have found a rather simple and effective way to make understanding large numbers easier – I remove some of the zeros.

For example, the US deficit is about $1.4 trillion. That’s $1,400,000,000,000. Neither you nor I nor any other normal human being can “get our mind around” that large number. Meanwhile, congress is discussing spending cuts of $50 billion or so. That number is too big to comprehend, too.

So, let’s do the zero-ectomy and put these figures in perspective. I’ll remove nine zeroes from both numbers. The US deficit becomes $1,400. That’s a number most of us can relate to.

Next, congress is thinking of cutting $50 billion, or $50,000,000,000. Removing nine zeroes again, we get $50.

So, to put the deficit and spending cuts in perspective, the US government has a $1,400 bill, and they are quibbling over $50. That means that if they could miraculously hold government spending where it is, and cut out $50 billion of Washington spending every year, we’d be out of debt in only 28 years.

Oh, not quite. There’s interest to pay. Even at 5% (ridiculously low) the interest on $1,400 is $70 per year, so $50 won’t even pay the annual interest. The truth is, we would go deeper into debt each and every year because of the interest. After five years, we’d owe $1,500! (Errr, $1.5 trillion.)

Think of it like your credit card. You owe $1,400 and you pay $50 per year. That does not pay the interest, so while you pay, your debt will increase every year until you are bankrupt. Same goes for Uncle Sam.

Voting

Well, it's voting time again. I used to puzzle over the "propositions" section of the ballot, but I have found a very simple way to figure out which way to vote on them.

Under 'fiscal impact' they usually say whether the proposition will result in more money for the government or less. If the proposition results in less money for the government, I'm for it.

Another good indicator is who endorses the proposition. If teachers, fire fighters, and police (unions) are for it, I'm against it. If they are against it, I vote for it.

This greatly simplifies the decision and voting process for me.

Toyota Problems

This was one of the headlines on Yahoo his morning: "AP - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he plans to speak with Toyota President Akio Toyoda about the auto maker's spate of recalls in the United States. LaHood confirms that the government is investigating potential electrical problems in Toyota vehicles."

It's a good example of government meddling in what should be none of their business. If Toyota makes an unsafe car, people will find out, and they will stop buying Toyotas. That will cost Toyota lots of money, and they will fix the problem. It does not require an investigation. It does not require a government bureaucrat meddling in the market. It does not require taxpayer money spent to support a huge government bureaucracy. It does not require a Department of Transportation. It does not require government at all. It is free people trading among themselves.

Haiti and Military Aid

Regarding the recent earthquake in Haiti, it is a massive tragedy; however, it brings to light a point for consideration.

The purpose of the US military is to defend our nation against foreign aggression. It is not to do charitable work. Charity is a wonderful side of humanity, but it is not what the military is equipped and trained to do. Military organizations are trained to kill and destroy, not to help people in need.

There are several organizations, such as the Red Cross, that specialize in that kind of work.

Americans (about 60% of us) pay taxes to the government for the benefit of our country. Our taxes are not supposed to be used for private benefit or for charity. Once again, charity is a beautiful action, but it is not a proper use of tax money. For those who want to give money or effort to help foreign countries in time of need, they are free to do that - with their own money - not money taken from other taxpayers.

Raising Kids

I wrote this several years ago, and I think it is still relevant.

If there is to be a world fit to live in, there must be parents willing to train their children to create that world and to live in that world. I think most parents in America today are on the wrong track. I think they are doing a poor job of raising kids fit for a world of nice people. Most kids of today are ill behaved, whining, screaming little criminals. They run their families, they are a nuisance to others, and their parents (who were raised the same way) let them get away with it. Bad behavior is accepted as “part of growing up.” They call it “self expression.”

A friend of ours was at dinner with us. We were having a pleasant conversation, when Heather, my 4 year old at the time, butted in, “Daniel’s putting French fries in his nose!” - or something like that.

I said, “Heather, I am talking with Lisa. Be quiet until we are done.”

Heather went back to her dinner. Lisa, mother of a 2 year old, seemed shocked. “Aren’t you afraid you’ll stifle her self-expression, or bruise her little ego, or something?”

“No,” I said, “Kids need to have their self-expression stifled a little. Can you imagine a world where everyone expressed everything they were feeling? Hell, I’d kill half the people I see and have sex the other half on the spot. I don’t want to live in a world like that, and I don’t want my kids to behave like that. She needs to learn to behave appropriately, and butting in while someone is talking is inconsiderate, rude, and inappropriate.”

It is now several years later, and Heather hardly ever interrupts anyone’s conversation. She waits patiently, and when there is a lull, she speaks. She is a very smart little girl, and she has a lot to say. Her self-expression is very much intact. With our training, she knows how to participate in an appropriate way. She is much more pleasant to be around than some 10, 12, or even 20 year olds who haven’t learned the art of polite conversation.

It took about three months to train her not to interrupt when other people are talking. Every time she interrupted a conversation between others, and I was present, I stopped her and asked her to wait until it was her turn – every time. It took some effort from me (and her mother), and we think it was worth it. We think it will have her life go better, and we think that is part of our job.

So, what is a parent’s job? I think our job is to raise human beings fit to live in a civilized world. We raise our kids to be people we enjoy being around, talking with, spending time with. It is not our job to be loved, or even liked, by our kids. It is not our job to coddle them or protect them from the natural consequences of their actions. As it happens, they do love us, and we enjoy that – but we don’t interact with them trying to get them to like us or love us. We try to teach them what is morally right, workable, and appropriate, whether they like us or not.

Once I was putting Heather down for her afternoon nap. She had been playing some game that she wanted to continue, and the nap interfered with it. After a few seconds of trying to persuade me that she didn’t really need a nap, she resorted to, “I don’t want a nap. You’re mean. I hate you.”

I smiled and said, “I got it (pause) and it’s still nap time.”

She has only tried that tactic a couple of times in her 6 years. I suspect that if it had worked, she would have used it again and again.

Along that same line, we never end a sentence with “OK?” Most parents seem to end almost every sentence with “OK?” nowadays. “Honey, we have to go now, OK?” “It’s time for dinner, OK?” “Don’t hit your sister, OK?” These kids apparently grow up thinking that’s the way to talk. For example, they grow up to be cops (on the TV show COPS) who often end their orders with “OK?” “Sir, you hit your wife with a baseball bat, OK?” You are under arrest for assault with a deadly weapon, OK?” “Turn around and put your hands behind your back, OK?” “Sit in my car, OK?” “We’re taking you to jail, OK?”

When you are in charge in the way parents and cops are, you should never ever ask if it is OK. Kids, like criminals, have no choice – besides, of course it is not OK!

You say to the kid, “It’s time for dinner.” “Sit down.” “Don’t hit your sister.” “Be quiet.” It is not a choice. It is an order from an authority.

And to the criminal, “Get out of the car.” “Drop the gun.” “Sit down.”

As adults, we understand that the “OK?” question is inauthentic and meaningless. At best, when we use “OK?” we really mean “do you understand?” Kids don’t have the capacity to understand that. It leads to resistance that is not present when you communicate in a simpler, more straightforward way.

For example, when it’s time to put our kids to bed we say, “Bedtime.” They get in bed; we tuck them in and kiss them good night; and leave the room. They go to sleep. They do not whine about it. They do not attempt to persuade us it is not bedtime. They don’t get up after we leave the room. They don’t talk and keep each other awake.

They tried these things a few times when they were one or two years old. They were never successful, not once. It took about a week to “bed train” them. Now, it is simply not an issue. I know other parents who are still trying to get their 10 and 12 year olds to go to bed at bedtime. “It’s time for bed, OK?” doesn’t work any better with a 12 year old than it did with a 2 year old.

When it is mealtime, we say, “Time for dinner.” Our kids come to the table and we have dinner.

When it’s time for school, we say, “Time for school.” They get in the car and we take them to school. No problem. No arguing. No whining. No discussion.

We never ask them if they want to go to school. We don’t ask if they want to go to bed. We don’t end sentences with, “OK?” We know it is not a choice, and they know it is not a choice.

When they were about five or so, each of them tried a couple of times “I don’t want to go to bed,” or something similar. We always acknowledge what they want, and we make it clear that what they want is not the deciding factor. We say something like, “I got that you don’t want to go to bed (pause) and it’s still time for bed, so you are going to bed.” That’s usually the end of the discussion. When they first tried the “I don’t want…” tactic, sometimes they’d persist with a couple of more attempts. Each was met with the same acknowledgement and steadfastness, “I heard you. You don’t want to have your bath now (pause) and you are going to have your bath, anyway.”

While I’m on the subject of choice, there are many areas where we allow the kids to make a choice. For example, “You can have a hamburger or a chicken sandwich. Which would you like?” “You can wear your blue shirt or the red one. Which do you want?” But if it is really not a choice, we don’t pretend that it is. A word to the wise – never give a child more than two alternatives unless you want to spend a long time having a detailed discussion about it.

I have heard parents say, “I have learned so much more from my children than they have from me.” I say if you are learning more from your children than they are learning from you, you are not doing your job. The parent should be the teacher, not the student. If you are even a mildly competent adult, your kids have nothing to teach you. They know nothing! Kids are little blobs of protoplasm, and it’s your job to turn them in human beings who can function in our world.
Most parents have 20 years or more of life experience. Kids have none. It is not a parent’s job to learn from kids. It is a parent’s job to teach.

While we have a lot of fun with our kids, and we recognize and applaud their innocence, we are not confused about who is teaching whom. We are the parents. They are the kids. We teach; they learn; period.

A family is not a democracy. This should be fairly obvious, but apparently it is not obvious to some parents. They are constantly asking their kids for opinions and votes. A family that works is not and cannot be a democracy. If the kids got a vote, you’d have jelly beans for every meal and watch cartoons all day. The bottom line is always, “because I said so.” Parents should use it often, with pride and without guilt.

When our kids were two or three, they began asking “why” about just about everything. Though it is tempting to answer their “why” questions, no good can come of it. It starts with perfectly innocent curiosity. “Why does this bug taste funny?” But if you answer even one “why” question, you will soon be answering many more. “Why do I have to go to bed?” “Why do you get to decide what we have for dinner?” “Why do I have to go to school” “Why do I have to obey the law?” “Why shouldn’t I smoke dope?”

Our kids are now 7 and 10, and they seldom ask “why” questions. They ask, how, when, what, who, and where questions, but seldom “why.” We trained them by answering almost every “why” question with either the standard Zen response or “because I said so.”

“Why is Daniel eating toilet paper?” Daniel is eating toilet paper because he is eating toilet paper. That’s what I mean by the standard Zen response.

“Why is poop brown?” Poop is brown because poop is brown.

“Why do I have to go to bed?” Because I said so.

“Why do I have to go to school?” Because I said so.

“Why do dogs lick their tails?” Dogs lick their tails because they lick their tails.

Once in a while I test them, “Daniel, why are you so smart?” He thinks only a second, and then grins, “Because I am smart!” “And Heather, why are you so beautiful?” “Because I am beautiful!” And so she is, and so he is.