on the nature of love...

or, at least the expression thereof.

i've never understood, and understand even less now, why the greatest expression of love that most men can muster is the willingness to beat people up and/or shoot at people? or why other people seem to think that is an admirable sentiment? i don't know. it's part of a larger question that i touched on with my post on violence as a tool of instruction. violence and the willingness to do violence as a admirable quality. *shrug* you know, of course, i would defend my life and the lives of my wife and child, but i don't go around crowing about my ability to do so. nor, do i hold that up as the shining example of my love for my family. i mean, in a lot of ways, that's like bragging about graduating from high school, or not having a prison record, or taking care of your kids (yes, i am channeling chris rock and i am proud of it). crack fiends in jail graduate from high school. so what? the same holds true for defending your family or your home or whatever. of course you would defend your home. do you want a cookie? if you want to be a father then you have to show up every single day and pull your weight. i mean, love is washing your kids diapers (without using kitchen gloves by the way--how much of a stud am i?). love is apologizing for losing your patience with him at three in the morning. love is the details of life not the grand gestures. to be honest, grand gestures are easy. they're so easy they've become cliche. they've become so cliche that if i go into a flower shop to buy flowers on a day that isn't a holiday, i can bet money on the clerk asking me what i did. i mean, they are nice, don't get me wrong. coming home with a new toy for the baby or flowers for the wife. yeah, that stuff is nice and you should do that every once in awhile. that may be what your child remembers, but it isn't how you prove your love, and your child will understand that when they become parents--the way i did. thanks pops. 'preciate ya, ma. i am beginning to understand the lifelong dedication it takes to raise kids and have a successful family.

dichotomies...

spare the rod, spoil the child. why does it have to mean whupping the shit out of your kid? why can't it just mean, "be disciplined, be steadfast?" you don't have to hit your kids to get your point across and believe it or not, more often than not, it just gets in the way of the lesson you're trying to impart. violence should be reserved for expressions of rage (be it passionate or cold-blooded)--violence should not be used as a tool of instruction. at least, not in the general case...if your field of exploration is a naturally violent one then violence has a place as an instructional tool (soldiers, pirates, ninja warriors, etc.).

and, on the other hand, why can't parents BE the damn parents? why can't they look at their child and say, "you know what, i understand that you're upset. you're going to have to get over it." i'm pretty sure that i say that to elijah every single day. i say it because i'm the parent, and i set the boundaries that govern his life. i engage elijah in the decisions that create his day, in as much as i can--he's one and a half. it is something that we will do more of as he becomes older and can understand reason. but, that engagement comes with the caveat that you have proven and continue to prove that you can handle that kind of responsibility. i mean, i think that it is just as bad and wrongheaded to be a dictator in a child's life as it is to give them too much freedom. being a parent is like constantly walking a tightrope that you can't see. parenting is a constant process of letting go.

being a good parent isn't about a system or a book (though i will be the first to admit that books and systems and lots and lots and lots of advice is helpful). i think being a good parent is absolutely the same as being in a good relationship. it's about honesty, trust and communication. it's about understanding who YOU are before you try to understand the anyone else. it's about understanding that you'll never be able to hold them as close as you do on the day that they're born, and you have to be ok with that.

My little man...

the other day i was outside of a restaurant with elijah--he'd been freaking out because he didn't understand that he couldn't have the french fries from another table. to be honest, i don't understand why we can't have them either, but there you have it. anyway, i was outside with him and this elderly couple walk by and the wife says, "oh what a pretty boy!" she looks at me and says, "oh, i'm sorry. i meant what a handsome boy. we don't call little boys pretty." she smiles and goes on her way. that's happened a lot...i guess i shouldn't be puzzled by it--i find that 7 years later, i'm still astounded by how different the world outside of warren wilson is. it never would have ever occurred to me to care whether or not someone called my son beautiful, pretty, handsome or whatever.

erin and i were talking about gender issues and identity today. i was saying that i never really know what to say to people when they say something like, "oh, he's just being a boy." elijah is incredibly sensitive to our moods and our attitudes. i can't help but think that he would easily pick up behavioral double standards. being an ass isn't acceptable, i don't care what your gender is. but, it frightens me to think about how far this attitude and double standard can push our tolerance. i don't know. maybe i'm complicating the issue, but i don't think that a lot of people really think about what casual words like that mean to a brand new mind. elijah is like an antenna hooked up to an amplifier. he takes what we say and do, distills it, and incorporates it into himself. he's even begun to mimic the way i stand at rest. how can i not pay more attention to how we approach gender identity? at what point does biology end and socialization begin?

like i said, maybe i'm overthinking the issue, but it is something that i worry about.

every week...

over the past few days there have been four articles in our local newspaper about the rising sea level. the article made one argument that i found compelling. it doesn't really matter why the seas are rising or why the climate is changing. what's most important to our (humanity--the Earth will be fine. freshwater marshes will become saltwater marshes but we'll starve) short term survival is that it IS changing. there aren't any policy changes we can make in the near term that will affect climate in the next 50 years or so (at least, i wouldn't think, i'm no expert), so why are we in such a bind over green taxes and fuel efficiency and the like? right now, it just doesn't matter. at the very least, the changes underfoot now are inevitable. we've missed the tipping point in terms of talking about reversing climate change or the rising seas. those things are happening and will run their full course--we should be talking now about how we're going to adapt to those changes.

the two biggest obstacles to our finding balance with the environment is population growth/movement and the exportation of pollution. i've talked about population as a social and economic issue before in an earlier post, but (as with all human activity) there is an environmental component as well. in countries that progressed through demographic transition, the populations are relatively stable. the birth rate and the death rate (barring significant social upheaval) are equal. now, take a country like mexico that seems to be stuck in a cycle of poverty and skyrocketing birth rates. not only does the mass exodus of mexican citizens to the north ameliorate a lot of social/economic problems, but also, mexico (or any 3rd world country with population mobility) as an entity will never have to face issues of inherent carrying capacity and population stability.

our half-assed policies with regard to pollution control will simply turn pollution into a commodity. any regional policy that attempts to control pollution will simply move that polluting process to a less regulated area. i mean...that seems pretty straightforward, right? how is it possible to have a pollution control policy that isn't world-wide? how can you turn down kyoto in favor of regional pollution credits and lukewarm tax incentives?...

i've been "working" on this entry for awhile now. i think that i'll go ahead and publish it--it's never going to be perfect. *chuckle*

...to be continued.