Reign, Reign, Go Away

 

“Après moi, le déluge” Louis XV is reputed to have said this,ⁱ although he was not thinking about rain at the time. He was certainly not considering Cairo, where the annual rainfall averages less than a half inch. In all of Egypt it it is usually less than three and a half inches. The annual overflow of the Nile between June and September – at least until the building of the Aswan Dam in July, 1970 – provided the water needed to grow crops.

Le déluge, however, came to Cairo in January and February of 2011. It came in the form of a peaceful revolution, with protesters filling Tahrir Square (Liberation Square) and protesting until Hosni Mubarak stepped down.

This wasn't the first revolution in the area: demonstrations had forced Tunisian President Ben Ali to resign just prior to the events in Egypt. In fact, the rallies in Tunisia had sparked those in Egypt. And there has been subsequent ferment in Bahrain and chaos and tragedy in Libya, with unrest in Yemen, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, as well as that continuing in the “West Bank” and Gaza. North Africa and the Middle East are in turmoil.ⁱⁱ It is impossible to know what other countries may be involved by the time this is printed, nor what governments will have fallen.

It cannot be denied that the free flow of information through broadcasts and via the internet and the various social networks contributed to the rapid spread of rebellion. When uprisings occurred in numerous European countries in 1848, the spread of information – and revolution – took longer, as was also the case during the fall of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. But in both cases the revolutionaries in one country took heart from the successes of their fellows elsewhere.

Looking at the current ongoing crisis, it is difficult to know what was the precipitating cause, although there are several factors which surely contributed. Among them are the poverty of much of the population, corruption by public officials, and the tyranny under which the people lived.ⁱⁱⁱ What do the protesters seek? Certainly not a new king or despot. They all yearn for democracy, although they may not really understand what that means.

Democracy is messy. Despotism is less so. You can make the trains run on time if those in your way are eliminated. It's not so easy if you have to contend with unions and the next election. But that is what makes a real democracy self-correcting. An orderly procedure is in place for changing governments when there is unhappiness with existing policies. It may not be as rapid as with a revolution, the knowledge that governmental change is possible, however, will usually be a good incentive for leaders not to stray too far from the will of their constituents.

But revolution does not necessarily lead to democracy. Following the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks split, and the former suppressed the latter. The resulting government was certainly no democracy. The “people” may have rid themselves of the czar, but the government they got instead was no bargain. And when the Iranians expelled the Shah, the ayatollah who replaced him did not ordain a free government and one following the will of the people.

And democracy also has risks. Differences of opinion are not easily suppressed, and may lead to unrest even in a democratic society. The American Civil War, which took place before the federal government was as powerful as it is now, is an example of such an event. But there are other risks. Not all “free” elections are honest. The election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was questioned by a large part of the Iranian population as well as by many other nations, but once in control of the government, the President suppressed opposition. So now there is new unrest in Iran and, if its leaders are not killed or jailed, the Iranian “democracy” may fall. And although Hitler came in second in the German elections of 1932, as part of the democratic process the following year he was appointed Chancellor and put in a position to totally eliminate democracy^iv from his adopted country.^v Meaningful voting is based on a culture and on education, and premature voting – especially that based on disinformation and emotion – is likely to lead to tyranny, not democracy.

And that is the problem in much of the world now in turmoil. There is no culture that can be expected to provide a base for a lasting democracy. Revolution is a rejection of existing conditions. It is a negative act. Democracy – real democracy – is positive. It does not focus solely on elimination of the old, but provides choices for the new. There are alternatives, not just the leader of an uprising. And a system like our own, with checks and balances, prevents any one individual, party, or bureau from becoming too powerful.

This is democracy as we understand it, but for many others “democracy” is simply a mantra aimed at toppling a government in power. The result is not likely to be a freely elected government, especially if a nation has been taught that religious laws, and hence religious officials, are paramount. A more probable result is a new tyranny, a military coup, or the election of a radical group which will take the country to a situation as bad, if not worse, than the current one. But what is the alternative?

The present situation has been fueled by information. The information has been of several kinds. It has included exposés of the impossibly difficult situation of a country's population and the benefits and powers of its leaders, the lives of others around the globe and the kinds of government they enjoy, and the steps that others have taken to rid themselves of the dictators who rule them. Our own government has broadcast extensively about democracy and its advantages, as well as the relative well-being of our own citizens. It's no wonder that others seek similar situations. We have given them the beginnings of an education.

This is the direction we must follow. More education. More information. We have preached democracy and we must support it. Not all the results will be favorable, but some will. And if the others relapse into new tyrannies, there will be future revolutions. It's up to us to provide the education, and perhaps eventually others will learn from it. Tranquility, unfortunately, is not at hand. We can hope for peace and real democracies, but it's more likely that additional dictatorships will follow. In the end though, the decision is theirs. Deluge or gentle nourishing spring rain. We can only hope for the best.

 

Next episode: Bowerman, Fixx And The Mexican Cartel – The worse it tastes, the better it is for you.

i     Some attribute it to Madame de Pompadour.

ii    Most of this seems to be a complete surprise to the current American administration and there seems to be no plan for dealing with it except to condemn Israel. The UN Security Council tried to do so but the United States, bowing to the large majority of American public opinion, vetoed the resolution, only to denounce Israel afterwards. It has since condemned Libya but it remains to be seen if this censure is, like most actions against countries other than Israel, a one-time affair.

iii    It's interesting that although most of the problems in the area are attributed to the issue of Palestine, this was not a matter of great significance to those who rebelled. All politics is local. The Palestinian issue seems to have been a smokescreen used by leaders of the countries involved to distract their own citizens from the difficulties which existed locally. That is not surprising. It is shameful, however, that other nations, under the cover of the United Nations, have abjectly surrendered to the Arab position and, while Middle East tyrants oppressed their own people, only displayed an interest in destroying the area's sole democracy. Those nations demonstrated a greater concern for Arab oil than Arab freedom and lives.

iv    He turned Germany into a military dictatorship.

v     Hitler was an Austrian who got German citizenship – and the right to run in German elections – because he served, as a result of an appointment, as administrator for the Brunswick state's delegation to the Reichsrat (with the Reichstag, one of the two German legislative bodies) in Berlin. Citizenship came with the appointment.

Sliced Bread

 

“It's the greatest thing since sliced bread!”

That's what some of the enthusiasts said about a singing group that was to be the attraction at a fund-raiser they were planning. I'm sure it was intended as a compliment.^i,ii I'm equally sure that those using the expression were unfamiliar with freshly-baked, warm, crisp, uncut bread of the kind that doesn't come in packages and that lacks the additives now used to increase shelf-life.

Statements like that – substitutions of trite aphorisms and words for more original thoughts – are too commonly heard, especially in the Twitter generation.

And that's the way it is with many expressions currently in use. People, thinking themselves clever, mouth clichés which may have no particular concrete associations for them, but which they learned long ago and have used without thought ever since. In the urban society in which most Americans live, most of us have never seen a haystack, but we know with certainty how hard it would be to find a needle hidden in one. And we're always able to spot someone wet behind the ears even if we've never seen a newborn farm animal. And many of those who do a Houdini don't understand where the term arose. And they're surely even less certain about the situation of someone with the Midas touch who is as rich as Croesus.ⁱⁱⁱ They probably wish they were he. But should they? Ancient history and mythology are low priorities in our twenty-first century education, so these expressions will likely die out soon.

But some persist, and they color and, to a degree, confuse our thoughts. No Brit would want to be sent to Coventry, but an American would view it as a trip to see a world famous cathedral. And we wait for the day when, in respect to our enemies, the shoe will be on the other foot, not realizing that this would mean an improvement for them.

Some aphorisms, however, go further and may be used to control us. The worst of these^iv is the caution against reinventing the wheel. The idea is one that, in addition to being a denigration of original thinkers, inhibits unconventional thought. The implication is that the use of a previously perfected method will save time and effort – that someone has already spent the time working out the problem and you can save yourself the effort if you follow his way.

Of course inherent in such an idea is the assumption that you want a wheel – that it is best suited to solve the problem you are facing, whatever it is. But that isn't always the case, so by preventing you from thinking about new approaches to the problem, the speaker ensures a lack of progress. It's all well-intentioned, but it may be ill-considered.

There's a lot to be said for^v clichés. But their use tends to limit rather than to extend our ideas on particular subjects. When we use expressions uncritically, we may sound as if we understand what we are saying, even as their use allows us to speak without thinking. A hackneyed phrase,^vi if it new to the listener, may seem fresh and clever as he extends its life another generation. But more often, it sounds trite, even if it is understood by the audience. Consequently it doesn't impress those who hear it. The speaker doesn't sound clever. Rather, the words are likely to be recognized as an expression of laziness and rhetorical poverty. It's better to experiment with new ways of saying something rather than to rely on the wheel alone.

Oh. And as for the singing group, I prefer fresh, crisp, unsliced bread.^vii

Next episode: “Reign, Reign, Go Away” – Fa, la, la, la, la, la.

i     “The greatest forward step in the baking industry since bread was wrapped.” That was the advertising slogan of the Chillicothe Baking Company, the manufacturers of Kleen Maid Sliced Bread, in 1928.

ii     Actually the group is quite popular.

iii    Some terms, like boycott, Oscar, and mesmerize, which derive from more recent figures, will probably persist.

iv     In my view. Actually you know that from last week's harangue.

v     And against

vi    What American, though familiar with the term “hack,” as in “hack stand,” knows what a hackney is or, for that matter, where Hackney is?

vii    Preferably with butter and salt.

Proust For The Masses

 

I don't care anymore. I'm too old. So I'm not at all reluctant to give advice.ⁱ Based on my experience I know what direction the next generation should take. I know what changes should be made.

“When I was your age … ”

“Not again. Who's interested in what happened back then.”ⁱⁱ

I have to admit that when I was young the last thing I wanted to hear was “When I was your age … ”ⁱⁱⁱ but that doesn't alter anything. The “good old days” are gone and replaced with a time of chaos. It didn't have to be like this, but somehow things are different now. The nickel chocolate bar of my youth now costs close to a dollar.^iv You're lucky when you get any change from a purchase.

You're always in touch with everyone and everything – even if you want peace and quiet. And the language has changed. As Cole Porter said, “Authors, too, who once knew better words/now only use four-letter words writing prose ... ” Every sentence, these days, seems to contain words and expressions that never would have been intoned in the past – certainly not in mixed company and only rarely in private. And other words seem to have metamorphosed into unrecognizable forms – at least unrecognizable to old fogies like me. Jones used to be a name. Now it's a condition. And Coke used to be a drink, or possibly a form of fuel. Well, it still seems to be a kind of fuel for some, but “coke” now has more sinister connotations than the drink – a former cough medicine – ever had.^v One form, “crack,” takes what used to be a verb and transforms it into a very improper noun. I guess this is progress.

Back in the good old days (actually they weren't all that good)^vi ...

I admit that these thoughts are not especially important. And they're a little trite. But right now I feel entitled to them. In the last few months I've attended my fiftieth college reunion and my own fiftieth wedding anniversary, as well a reunion of men and women in my training program over forty years ago.^vii And a fiftieth anniversary concert of a chorus in which I've sung. The years pass.

I'm not sure my own aging gives me the right to impose my views on others, but I remember how things were, and right now I'm not interested in what others consider my rights – what I may and may not do. I still care for what used to be called “Right” or “Wrong.” Nowadays I know that there is believed to be no Right or Wrong.^viii Everything is relative. There are no absolutes. So I can't even expound on what ought to be – only on what is. It's become clear that all I can do is to use this space to try to work out my thoughts. I can only reflect on what I've learned.

And what has come to me is an image of Abraham Lincoln. Not that we were contemporaries, but when I went to school he was an example for us of a true and a great American – what we should all be like. So, back in the middle of the twentieth century, what did they teach us? That Abe Lincoln studied his law books by candle light.

Shouldn't he have turned on the lights? Or used the internet? Or kindled his Kindle rather than the candle wax? But if I didn't have these things as a child, certainly he never had them. Those things weren't available to him in the nineteenth century. Electricity, although it existed and had even been discovered, hadn't been put to much use. There was no internet and there certainly weren't devices based on wireless technology. However useful those items may be to us, Abe Lincoln, or anyone of his time, wouldn't have even dreamed of them.

A few centuries earlier – before Gutenberg – there weren't easily accessible books, especially law books. Even after him it took a while for the spread of his printing press and its products. And before Prometheus stole fire from the gods, man – even the greats like Lincoln – wouldn't have even been able to light candles. But, of course, that was then. And we have since learned how to make fires and even burn books. To that degree there has been “progress.”

Times change (or so “they” want us to believe). Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Our lives are very different from those of our forebears. Certainly medicine has progressed since my childhood, and movies, and electronics, and a wide variety of “things.” But people are the same.

We're quick to quote Santayana. We admonish those who follow us not to ignore history for fear that they will repeat it. But by emphasizing the past we forget the future. What our parents liked, what worked for them, is not necessarily what we need if there is to be progress. That's why I wasn't interested in hearing of my elders' childhoods and why today's youth aren't interested in mine. Old ideas aren't always correct. We may be cautioned not to waste our time reinventing the wheel, but sometimes a wheel is not what we need. Perhaps the reason we cannot solve our problems is that our “solutions” are little more than rearrangements of those problems and of past solutions. Perhaps we need an entirely new approach.

Unfortunately, all the changes are superficial. Song styles may differ, language may change and prices may rise, but we accept these as evidence of progress without any real alteration in the causes of our difficulties. A computer only increases our ability to recognize the difficulty quickly – it does not change human nature. We're as involved with ourselves and our own ways as we've always been. History doesn't repeat itself, it simply persists. Repetition would suggest that are points of progress from which we return to the past – that where we are is different from where we once were. And there's nothing new under the fluorescents.

So, sadly, real change is unlikely. The technology will improve, but no matter how we tweak the world around us nothing will really be different. Our electronics will make quantum leaps and we'll live longer to take advantage of it, but we and our children will never understand each other and they certainly won't understand us.^ix Things past will continue to be irrelevant. I may be entitled to pass on my wisdom, however no one is obliged to listen. So however much I may yearn for change, I know that it's unlikely to come.

Maybe I expect too much. Perhaps the generations, notwithstanding our attempts to engage our offspring, weren't meant to communicate. Nothing is likely to be fundamentally different. But that won't be my problem.

Next episode: “Sliced Bread” – Trite white.

i     But you know that.

ii    That's not a word-for-word quotation, but it reflects the sense of what was said in language acceptable for publication.

iii    In fact, I usually tuned out when those words appeared on someone's lips, so it was the last thing I heard.

iv     Or even more if it comes from a machine.

v     Actually, until 1903, Coca-Cola contained cocaine, but for most of that time it had positive, not negative, connotations.

vi    It horrifies me to consider that the chaos we face today will be the “good old days” when our children are societies elders – the curmudgeons of the future.

vii    I used to be a radiologist. But I think I told you that before in a prior essay.

viii   They're wrong.

ix    Nor we them.

Parenting For Dummies

It's very much in vogue nowadays to say that “it takes a village to raise [sic]ⁱ a child.” That idea was popularized by a politician, a lawyer, who was probably seeking votes (at that time – 1996 – for her husband, but probably in the expectation that it would serve her well personally in the future). The idea, of course, wasn't new, having its origin in an old African proverb, and, in fact, “It Takes A Village” was the title of a book that appeared two years before hers – just about the time that her ghostwriter started hers.

In any event, the concept may have been applicable in seventeenth or eighteenth century Africa – and, indeed, the ideas of cooperation and responsibility that it proclaims are certainly true today – but it is currently more rooted in politics than parenting. The idea would certainly have been popular among the founders of the kibbutz movement in Israel in the early and middle part of the twentieth century, because many of them favored the communal rearing of children.ⁱⁱ It is also probably considered “correct” in societies elsewhere that look to the community as the source of goodness and wisdom, and minimize the individual, whose primary value is as part of the group. And among women.^iii,iv And it is a way of blaming the larger community for any failure in a child's upbringing rather than accepting personal responsibility. We are, after all, a litigious society, and always looking for someone else to blame.

But there are problems with such a system. Now that there are usually smaller families, and most live in cities lacking social communities similar to those in African villages, the idea does not seem to be as applicable.^v In all likelihood, each member of the social circle in which the child and his/her^vi mother exist will have read a different book by a different “expert,” and every one of them will tell of the ''right” way to rear a child – one unlike all the others. Hence the village will “raise” the child in different, and often conflicting, ways – ways which are likely to be at odds with any inclination of the parents. That, of course, will be confusing to the child and make him less, rather than more, likely to act in the civilized manner that mother and father had in mind.^vii What's to be done?^viii,ix

The problem is that there are too many “experts” – especially in a village.^x The solution, obviously, is another expert, but one who works within the context of a family. And that's I. I make no pretense at originality. Parents have been raising children forever, but from what I've seen and heard, too often they may go off in the wrong direction.^xi What I'll try to do (and succeed at doing if you're paying attention and if you really care how your children develop) is to give some basic rules that are guaranteed (or double your money back) to make you a good parent.^xii Even if it's not easy, it can be very rewarding.^xiii

First of all, the best parents come in pairs: preferably two people who are of different sexes (with genders that match the sexes) and who like each other. In addition, it is best if they have like ideas about raising children, and ideal if those ideas are the ones I am giving here. Those ideas center on the concept that children know they are children and, though they wouldn't admit it, they are aware that they don't know everything.

Proper family structure is critical to success in bringing up children.^xiv Parents may have different philosophies on the subject, but they should be worked out in private – never in front of the children. The decision of one of them, once expressed to the child, should never be contradicted by the other.^xv The children should never profit by playing off one parent against the other. In fact, punishment for such an attempt should be considered. A vital aspect of parental behavior is consistency – both on the parts of the parents individually, and the two together. If the children can anticipate the results of their behavior in advance, there is likely to be less “testing.”

Children need structure^xvi – both in the family hierarchy and in the way their lives are run. There should never be any question about who is in charge. And it should never be the children.^xvii Children should be taught the “rules” as early as they can understand them,^xviii and the penalties for violations should be clearly delineated. You should never make a threat you are not prepared to carry out. And you should always carry it out. They should learn to respect you. And, equally important, you should respect them.

At times this will require corporal punishment^xix which should be dispensed when the children refuse to do what you tell them to.^xx After a few applications they will get the point. Properly performed (relatively early in their development and never on the face), accompanied by an explanation of the offense, and followed by a display and declaration of love, this is likely to achieve the goal of order in the household along with an understanding of the hierarchy and the importance of following the rules.^xxi A respect for authority rather than a questioning of it will serve them better in life, and properly performed it won't turn them into homicidal maniacs. The frequent alternative, prolonged yelling, is more likely to contribute to testing as the child tries to see what he can get away with, knowing that the only risk is noise, which he rather enjoys.^xxii A side benefit of the judicious imposition of the “rod” rather than screaming is that the other children in the family will learn by what they see happening to their sib, and will be less likely to test.

As with yelling, children learn a lot from their parents.^xxiii,xxiv Two examples will illustrate this point (although the actual situations are too numerous to mention): if you eat what they'd like to have (perhaps a snack, something else more tasty than nourishing, or the last portion of a food they like) while telling them they must eat something else (like okra or broccoli), they may refuse food altogether. And if you partake of self-serving dissembling when speaking to your spouse, they will learn to lie. Never lie in front of your children.^xxv Never! As early as feasible they should learn that trust is the basis for relations between people. As they expect you to tell the truth – especially when you offer them something – you expect them to tell the truth at all times. The penalty for not doing so should always be greater than that for whatever they're trying to hide.

Food is a different problem. Children often refuse food because of its appearance and before they've had the opportunity to taste it. And it's fun to throw it around. Fortunately children eventually get hungry. Negotiation over meals is not permissible. Ideally the child will be told in the morning what will be served for dinner. And when dinner is served it should be a “take it or leave it” affair. The children are under no obligation to eat, but if they're hungry the food is before them.^xxvi And it's useful to establish regular meal times during which all members of the family will sit together at the table whether they choose to eat or not. Of course neither newspapers nor other reading materials should be permitted during meals.

There are times when a child, for whatever reasons, displays what is often viewed as “middle-child syndrome” – even if he in not a middle child. He may become belligerent or teary. He's sensitive. But he needs reassurance that everything is all right and you still love him. Sometimes all it takes is the suggestion that he go to his room and rest, and come back when he feels better. A few minutes of your undivided attention and a good hug then are wonderful reinforcement of the entire process.

One more note should be kept in mind. (There are many more pieces of advice I could offer, but those here will probably provide a good starting point and you'll learn the rest as you go along.) Your children will sometimes try to help you. But, of course, they'll have their own ideas about what constitutes help. You'll probably try to emphasize that “help” is doing what you need to be done, not what they feel like doing.

Remember that, when you consider your own responsibilities. You may mouth the mantra “I'll always be there for you,” but that support is of greatest value when they need it, not when you have some free time and can give it without disrupting what you're doing. And whether or not you think they need it, it's worthwhile, for both of you, if you throw in a physical demonstration of love every now and then.

Finally, outside experts like me don't have to live with the results of their recommendations, but you do. Neither do they have to face the everyday problems not outlined. That, of course, doesn't make the recommendations wrong. But it places all the real responsibility where it belongs – on the parents.

Good luck.^xxvii

Next episode: “Proust For The Masses” – From the past to the present.

i     “Rear” is probably a better word to indicate nurturing, and it saves a letter. It's also a good site for the application of disciplinary measures. More on that later.

ii     It's interesting that the model of group children's houses is less in favor now and there has been a return to the nuclear family.

iii    My intent is not to be sexist – even if this is read that way – but a recognition of the greater interest of women than men in the rearing of children, and in the fact that women are, by their nature (again this may appear sexist even if there is scientific backing), more social than men.

iv    Perhaps supporting the previous point is the fact that the politician, her ghostwriter, and the author of the original book were all women.

v     Societal, as well as absolute, “norms” play an important part in child rearing as well as everything else. We have to live in the society in which we exist. However other patterns may be closer to Truth in a Platonic sense, if they differ significantly from those around us, they will be detrimental.

vi    That's my nod – and my only one – to egalitarianism. At this point I'll revert to more comfortable and historically based language patterns.

vii    If your mindset is centered on the village, though, ignore the sanctimommies. You'd be best following the suggestions of some grandmothers (and the grandfathers). They've been through the experience of raising children, and they survived. And they've probably heard all of the “rules” that the academics promote and can balance them against life in the real world.

viii   The lawyers have taught us never to ask a question unless we already know the answer and it is one we want to hear.

ix    Although some would suggest locking up your children until they're thirty (children should be neither seen nor heard), and then throwing them out of the house, that's not always the best alternative.

x     "When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber." -- Winston Churchill

xi     In this matter, as well as in many “self-help” matters, the ones who read this material and try to put it to use are the ones who don't need it. The dysfunctional, who might benefit, aren't likely to be reading such works. Intelligent people would probably do as well, or better, (and save a lot of money) by following their own instincts. That was the pattern until a few decades ago

xii    It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that I know the right way to rear children, just as I know the Right way to do everything.

xiii    The instructions that follow are long. I offer no apologies. You'll have twenty or thirty years to work them out.

xiv    Division of responsibilities (work, housekeeping, cooking) need not be in accordance with what some view as usual social “norms,” (actually the concept of responsibility will be covered in a future essay) but should be understood in advance so there is no need to argue over it. Both parents should play a prominent part in child care.

xv    Every now and then it may be necessary, after such a private discussion, to change a decision, but that should be done and explained by the one who made it, not by the other parent.

xvi     Children are, by their nature, destructive and disruptive. It goes with the territory, and you'll have to break them of those tendencies. You should know, however, that both are normal even though correction is necessary.

xvii   Children know how to push buttons. Be alert.

xviii   Lists and schedules of activities, chores, and the like are a good way to provide structure and to delineate expectations. Responsibilities should be spelled out clearly. So should bed time. If the child is regularly late for sleep or a school bus or something of the like, make the scheduled time earlier. That might be hard on you as well as the child, but it may have to be done.

xix    If you think logic will work you're living in another world. “Children, I guess, must have their own way the minute that you say 'no.'” – The Fantasticks, 1960, Schmidt and Jones.

xx    Yes. I know. It hurts you more than it does the child. Live with it. Both of you will be the better for it.

xxi   There's a lot to be said for reward and punishment. Although I've emphasized the punishment, don't forget the rewards. Bribery is a useful tool when rearing children, and the people who advise against it are flat out wrong.

xxii   Babies cry. That's the only way they know to get attention (but you don't have to jump every time it happens because children are healthy, resistant and resourceful beasts). As they get older they learn to yell and scream. If they hear yelling from parents it will feed into that tendency on their part. A calm voice with an explanation, a spanking, and love are a more effective alternative. And they're less bothersome to the neighbors. Sound and fury don't necessarily indicate anything, either from children or parents.

xxiii   In “The Nature Assumption,” Judith Harris points out that most of what children learn is from their peers, rather than their parents. But I am convinced that this must refer only to the specifics (of which there are many) rather than basic principles.

xxiv   Children also learn from their sibs, especially bad habits. And they always believe (whether it is true or not) that you are favoring the other. It is important to get them to focus on their own behavior and their own benefits rather than to compare themselves to a sib. And it's important that you don't make such comparisons.

xxv   Or, for that matter, anyone else.

xxvi   A single backup meal, like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, could be available at all times, but no more than one. Otherwise there will be interminable negotiations.

xxvii   You'll need it.