Our Children, Ourselves

Too many parents make life hard for their children by trying, too zealously, to make it easy for them. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

On a couple of previous occasions I've written about parenting. In this essay I want to address the reality of being a parent, and what our expectations should be of our children and of ourselves. It's something we don't think about all that often, except to complain or brag about the kids. We rarely consider what our own role is in their development. There's nothing original here, and I've probably said most of it before, but it bears repeating.

What is our role in their upbringing? We have responsibilities. What do we want of our children? What do we expect of them (and ourselves)?

In all likelihood we want our children to be healthy and confident. We want them to be well educated and capable of dealing with society both fiscally and emotionally. We want them to love and respect us, and we want them to know right from wrong. And we want them to have a better life than we.

In the past children were raised with the anticipation that they would help out on the farm and support their parents as they got older. However much they may have been loved, life was not made easy for them just as it had been difficult for their parents. They were expected to marry to continue the cycle, but care for, and assistance of, their parents was expected. Children, and future generations, provided joy for their parents, but we made demands of them. They served us and now, as times have changed, we must serve them. The bargain, in prior years, required contributions from both sides, but now it is primarily the parents who must take responsibility.

That doesn't mean that we must make life easy for them. We do them no favor by catering to all their demands. Goethe had it right. It takes what may be perceived as a hard childhood to provide the necessary preparation for a productive and rewarding adult life. And, to a degree, that “hard childhood” is difficult for us as well. But it's worth it. What follows are some of the lessons I've learned from some reading and from rearing my own children, of whom I'm very proud.

One of the qualities that please parents is the quickness of their learning – even before they start a formal education. And every parent believes “my children are smarter than yours.” They're learning every moment even without the intention to learn. They internalize whatever they see and hear around them. And that makes their parents their first teachers. So everything you do should be a model for what you want of them. If they see you dealing fairly with them they're more likely to deal fairly with others. If they perceive that you are lying to them, they'll interpret that as meaning that lying is acceptable. If you want them to work hard, they should know that you work hard. And if, for example, you want them to visit your grave, be sure that they've seen you visiting your parents'.

They'll base their political and religious philosophies on what they hear and experience in the home. At least as a starting point, though they may alter their views as they learn from others well. And it's from you that they'll absorb their first biases. So it's up to you to set an example. In short, don't say or display any traits that you don't want them to have. It's not easy. We're not perfect, even if our children believe that we are – at least they believe that in their early years.

Also important to their development is structure – rules, responsibilities, expectations, and care in what they do. Though they will rebel against them – complain that you're demanding too much of them – and it might be easier to give in and do their chores yourself, such a practice won't contribute to their development of responsibility. It may be harder to insist on them completing their own tasks rather than palming them off on you but that's what you must do. That includes homework and other school projects. It's not unreasonable to help and direct them, but in the end they must do the learning themselves – learning that will benefit them in their adult years, even if they doubt its relevance in their childhood. They'll tell you they hate and resent the other jobs too. Even so, however, the knowledge that you're depending on them to perform those tasks is important for their self-image, and the successful completion of their assignments is certain to contribute to their self-confidence.

Importantly, they'll learn, by your fairness and firmness, a respect for proper authority. They may ultimately reject particular authorities, but, assuming everything is being done for the common good, they'll work to support those acting on their behalf and serving as their leaders.

In addition, they should learn to accept others not in authority – even those who may lack some of the abilities they themselves have; that they're responsible for, and must attend to the needs of others who are not as fortunate as they, whether physically or economically.

Most important, however, is their experience of your love – especially the knowledge that you've given up some of your own wishes in order to help and please them. They should know that you respect their informed decisions (applauding whims teaches the wrong lesson) and that you learn from them as they learn from you. And they must know that choices appropriate to their age are theirs; that they are not fulfilling your fancies or are required to achieve what was beyond your ability. As the cliché goes, it's not about you.

In the long run, however, you get no guarantees. There's nothing more satisfying, though, than knowing that whatever the outcome, you've done your best for your children.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have more that I want to say on the subject however it will have to wait. But it will come. Enough for now. Pop psychology 101 is currently on vacation.

August 30, 2017

Uneven Playing Field

It's sad, but it's routine. There are times when context is omitted and only pretext remains. It may be intentional or it may be based on ignorance, but in either case it may lead to misleading conclusions.

For example there is much in the media on the topic that “Black Lives Matter.” But so do brown and white and any other lives. The latter, however, are not the concern of some groups who emphasize police “racism” – the killing of innocent black men by white police. But American society has been racist for hundreds of years and the police often reflect society's views – even if only in a minority of cases. It shouldn't happen at all. The numbers are small, but one is too many. Mention is rarely made however of the numerous killings of blacks by blacks, or of the killing of whites by blacks. And the assassination of the police doesn't usually last more than one news cycle. But the protests of the killing of blacks by white police is usually extended along with the riots (and associated deaths), even though such tragedies are not common.

Portions of the incidents are often recorded on cellular telephones by witnesses who are presumed to be unbiased, and whose evidence is conclusive. These videos are often circulated on social media and “go viral” before any police report is filed, and the officer convicted in the public's mind before he has a chance to say anything. Indeed, police regulations regarding the release of information related to ongoing investigations may prevent him (or her) from defending himself publicly. And when the eventual trial comes (if the officer isn't indicted the community will protest loudly to the press) the memory of the officer, and his report, are attacked as self-serving and not to be believed. The report came long after the incident and the officer was under stress during the confrontation. They cannot be taken seriously. Only the witnesses are reliable, and only the evidence they present can be trusted.

As a partial solution of the problem the New York City Police Department will, next week, be outfitting its officers with body cameras to record such incidents. (It is also possible that knowledge of the cameras will lessen the number of incidents because those few who aren't following the rules will know that they are being monitored.) This policy, however, has provoked further protests and there are demands that implementation be delayed. For example, the ACLU and others insist that there be no viewing of tape by the officer before a report is written, and memory aided by documentation shouldn't be allowed. The previous regulation was written when officers had only their memories on which to rely. The memories were challenged. And (often incomplete) community videos and testimony were given greater weight than the assertions of the police. Now that memory can be aided there is the possibility that the video and the report will correspond. Memory will be more accurate and lawyers will have less opportunity to question it or to find a discrepancy between the written report and the video. Those using their 'phones have no restrictions of this sort and can select what they choose to film, what they submit to lawyers, and what they put on the internet. And when they do so.

Early recording would be helpful because it may provide documentation of what happened before the home-made videos were turned on to record the “unjustified” police violence. There has never been great concern about the videos submitted by “uninvolved” bystanders – what they included and what they omitted. What they contain is sufficient to convict. What happened prior to their being turned on is obvious. Now that the police may have cameras it is self-evident that they should be turned on at the beginning of the incident so that nothing is missed, and if it isn't, the entire recording is suspect. The argument seems logical, even though there had been no concern by protesters about what may previously have been omitted in the videos of “witnesses.” And there is no concern that stopping to turn on a camera at the very beginning of an incident may result in its intensification or danger to those involved.

What results is a protest against what should help in the proper function of the justice system. Whom does that help? The protesters, and the lawyers seeking either conviction of the police or large monetary settlements. Perhaps they are justified, but limiting the opportunity to obtain unbiased evidence is not the way to accomplish legitimate goals. Both the public and the police are entitled to a fair system and a level playing field.

April 20. 2017

Fairness

                                                                                  

The past week has provided two reasons for introspection: the first anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, and the Jewish New Year. Both deal with the weakness of the individual, and the power to which he is answerable and upon whom he depends. But they couldn't be more different.

The New Year is actually part of a longer period of repentance in which we acknowledge our many failures and seek forgiveness for them. We also express our dismay at the success of foreign nations that oppress us and mock us. We're demoralized by their success and by our own weakness and subjugation by them. That failure to comprehend the victory of the attackers is universal. It's the theodicy yielding so much religious philosophy, and it's the basis for many longer essays and books, of which “When Bad Things Happen To Good People” is probably the most famous. That's not to say that we consider ourselves “good.” Quite the opposite. We lament our own faults, which we consider the cause of our condition, and the justification for our punishment. But we ask that similar retribution be visited on those who are G-d's agents in delivering the penalty we deserve. We resent their triumphalism and mocking when we know that they, too, are far from perfect. Indeed, we consider them worse than ourselves.

But primarily it's a time of self-examination. It's a period when we think about the mistakes we've made and how we can better ourselves. We ask for G-d's forgiveness and His help in our efforts to change. And we seek condign punishment for the outside nations that would destroy us. We pray we'll be successful in achieving these goals, but we focus on seeking forgiveness for our errors and help in the difficult, but necessary, effort to improve ourselves. As Pogo Possum said, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”

The goals of OWS are less clear, so assessment of their success is more difficult. Along with additional protests about how participants were treated by the authorities, there have been increased costs to the public for police and sanitation workers, as well as disruption of the lives of those who live near demonstration sites. And as the protests spread, so did the costs and disruptions. I don't think that any meaningful legislation resulted from the complaints, despite the loud demands. But there was one major outcome – the popularization of the word “fairness.” That word seems to be shorthand for whatever will improve the condition of the middle class and the poor, with the costs borne by the rich. After all, as everyone knows, the rich (those parasites who make more than I) don't pay their fair share of taxes. And we're too rich a nation to let the poor suffer.

What's fair? According to the IRS, in 2009 – the last year for which I could locate data – the top 1% of taxpayers, with an adjusted gross income of $393,927 or higher (by the way, I don't qualify), paid 36.73% of all Federal personal income taxes, and the top 10% (income over $112,124) paid 70.47%. The lowest 50% (income less than $32,396) paid 2.25%. That doesn't include state and local taxes and payroll taxes, nor are inheritance, corporation, and capital gains taxes included, so it's difficult to determine how much of the total tax is paid by each group. It's clear, though, that those who earn more pay considerably more than those who earn less, and if the 70% paid by the top 10% in any way reflects government tax income and what it purchases, then those with incomes in excess of $112,124 (and that, of course, includes Oprah Winfrey, Derek Jeter, George Clooney, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and all your favorite television, sports, movie, and political heroes – and maybe you) paid more than 70% of the cost of entitlements. And they also pay most of the tax costs for defense against nations which would attack us. What would be a fairer tax burden?

And there are other criteria of fairness. However much we may resent the rich, we long to be among them. So we buy lottery tickets or gamble in other ways. And we sometimes forget to report all our earnings to the IRS. And of course fairness depends on whom it hits. When the Alternative Minimum Tax was originated, it was aimed at the “rich,” and established a minimum for them although there was no similar minimum tax for those who earned less. It was fair. At least until the rising salaries of those who had earned less now put them in the affected bracket. When they were taxed it was unfair.

Like the period of repentance, OWS also inspires self-examination. The conclusion, however, is the opposite – it's that any mistakes are those of the “rich,” who don't pay their fair share of support for everyone else. It's not my fault. I don't have to change, I don't have to improve myself – they do. I have no responsibility. When bad things happen to good people – to us – it's THEIR fault.

Knowing The Unknowable

I often think about those I cannot think about.

I cannot think about them because I don't know them. I see people on the street walking alone, or talking to each other; I see people who are clearly unhappy or who are happy, people deep in thought, and those singing silently to the music being piped into their ears by some electronic device; or I see people who are apparently talking to themselves. Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are what, in less “sensitive” times, we used to call crazy, or perhaps they are talking on telephones that I just don't see.

I wonder about them. I don't know them and they don't know me. We live in different worlds, and I shall never know them.

Those are the ones I see. But there are billions whom I shall never encounter. Most of them live in circumstances I would never be able to endure. It's easier not to think about them. But I do. I wonder about their lives and like to think that they are as happy as I – living in a world that is familiar to them, and not giving much thought to the lives led by others of whom they have little comprehension, and in whom they have no interest.

And there are uncountable numbers who lived and died long ago – centuries and millennia. I don't remember my own ancestors, people I never knew even if I heard stories about some of them. I certainly don't remember all the others. No one does. The nameless ones – the ancestors of those living or of no one now alive – whose days ended long before ours started. A few are remembered because of some great accomplishment, but for each of them there are millions who are long forgotten.

It is part of Jewish tradition to remember the dead. We say Kaddish for them on their yahrzeits, the anniversary of their deaths. We light candles for them – the flames resurrecting the souls who have left us. And we do so again four times a year when we recite the Yizkor service, a service devoted to the remembrance of our relatives and our friends and those who have died as martyrs or soldiers for our people. We remember them and we make contributions in their memory as a kind of bribe – a deal with G-d that they receive favorable treatment in exchange for our gift. In a similar manner, we pray for the sick. We believe that in some way those prayers may be answered by G-d with the recovery of the one for whom we plead. In the hope that the greater the number of prayers the greater the chance of success, we appeal to others to join us.

But it doesn't seem fair, at least not as far as human understanding permits us to understand fairness. Who remembers the generations that preceded us – the countless souls that are no more? Will I be forgotten by G-d when, after I have died, there is no one left to say Kaddish for me? What is the fate of the childless? And is your recovery from illness more likely if there are many who include you in their prayers? Is a return of good health more uncertain if no one petitions on your behalf? Does you fate have anything to do with you or are you totally dependent on others? And if you have no others?

There are more questions than answers. There always have been. Although some will offer justifications for apparent inequities, often with an aura of confidence that does not appear to reflect reality, we're left with a world in which there is more suffering than we want to think about. So we don't think about it. We know that we can't end that suffering, no matter what we do.

But we can't do nothing, even if we can't solve the world's problems. It may be easier to accept the cynical position that our efforts will be useless, but none of us has the right to throw our hands up in the air and make no effort to help someone else. However small our contribution, it is our obligation to try to improve the lot of others, including those we don't know. Especially those we don't know, for there is probably no one looking after them or remembering them.

But whether time or money, whether local or international, it's probably worth the effort to help and to remember. I say “probably” because no one knows ultimate consequences – mundane or divine. Maybe it will help, now or in the future. Maybe not. Things don't always turn out as we'd wish, but ignorance, isolationism, and inaction cannot be justified. If we didn't know it already, the Holocaust taught that lesson. As Burke is reputed to have said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” And all that is necessary for those who once lived, and for those who live and suffer now, to be forgotten is for good men and women to do nothing. Whether we can accomplish something or not, we have to try; we have to remember those who might be lost to memory, and act on behalf of those in need. We have to think about those whose existence is almost impossible to imagine, and try to do something. Maybe we'll succeed.

We can only hope.

Next episode: “Playing The Numbers” -- Size matters.

 

The Root Of All Evil

If a billionaire saves a hundred million or so on his taxes by the use of tax shelters, it's unfair. If you leave your car by an expired parking meter while you run inside a store for a minute to get a newspaper, and find a ticket on the windshield when you return, that isn't fair. The difference is that he hasn't broken the law but you have. And that's not fair either.ⁱ

Or is it?

We are ready to attribute all sorts of crimes and evils to those who are better off than we, but our eagerness to do so may not be justified. From early childhood we're taught that the love of money is the root of all evil. For some this is a prelude to a life of evil. For most, however, this is considered a warning not to treasure money – that we must forswear such a preoccupation. But the original claim is not true. And even those who believe it,ⁱⁱ ignore it. That's the way it is with most warnings. They have little effect.

The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil. Really? All? The two most serious evils are murder and rape. And of the murders, serial killing is the most reprehensible. Perhaps love is sometimes the reason for rape, but it is not the love of money.ⁱⁱⁱ Freud could tell you that – but you don't need Freud. And while the motives for murder may include financial gain, there are numerous other causes that have nothing to do with money. Among them (the list is far from all-inclusive) are jealousy, hatred, vengeance, lust for power, and envy. And the all-inclusive “psychological factors.” For serial killers the reason^iv is equally, or perhaps more complex. “There are many other motivations [besides sex] for serial murders including anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking.”^v

I don't mean to minimize the power of money to govern our activities and to inspire evil activity, but we are all guilty to one degree or another. Human nature is unchangeable. All people share the same attitudes, whether we're rich or poor, and we all have the same failings, desires, and fantasies. We're ready to take credit for something praiseworthy that we didn't do and to shift the responsibility for our error. We resent the success of others in getting what we want for ourselves. We don't want to have to keep up with the Jonses. We want them to try (unsuccessfully) to keep up with us. If we view ourselves as members of the ninety-nine percent whose goal is to achieve what the one percent have,^vi who can blame us?^vii

There are some perfectly legal ways to get a bigger slice of the pie. In union there is strength. So if we join a union that threatens a rich industrialist^viii with a work stoppage^ix unless he increases salaries, pensions and other benefits, it's perfectly all right. In fact it's admirable. And it's all right to park next to the broken parking meter or go through a broken turnstile. After all, you didn't break them. Another thing – you certainly don't want to waste time and gas driving back to the supermarket because you got too much change. It was their error, not yours. And you can save on state taxes if you buy on the internet, or if you go out of state to make a major purchase.^x

Making money otherwise, however, isn't so easy. Perhaps we lack the creativity, connections, or monetary backing of those we envy, but we can try to make up for it with luck. The government is likely to promote such thinking by sponsoring get-rich-quick lotteries, but for most people this method is not likely to be rewarding.^xi It's easier to cut corners. If a friend, who works in a local store, tells you that the item you're about to buy will be on sale tomorrow, chances are good you'll put off your purchase.^xii After all, no one gets hurt. The store owner is going to put it on sale anyway and someone will buy it at the lower price. It might as well be you. But it's as much insider trading as that of a stockbroker who is being prosecuted by the Attorney General.

Perhaps you “forget” to report all your income^xiii when making out your tax forms. Or maybe you were “creative” in their completion. Perhaps you didn't present exactly right the facts regarding the accident you just reported to your insurance company. Maybe you weren't completely in the right. Perhaps, also, some of the scratches and dents were there before the accident. But you live in a “no-fault” state and they have deep pockets. And you've paid them for years. It's payback time.

And if all else fails, there's always bankruptcy. If you can't pay your American Excess bills, some lawyer or business will have a plan to get you out of money trouble, or at least make you think he is doing so. The trick is to work things out so that you can keep everything you have but not be required to pay for it. And then you'll need to get a new start so you can do the same thing all over again. Who loses but the companies that have too much money to begin with?

When condemning money, and its holders, as evil, though, we shouldn't overlook some of its positives. The one who wants to make a fortune with a new company will probably create jobs and hire workers. Many of our charities get a significant part of their income from wealthy donors who benefit from the tax deductions they get. And there are drugs which may make money for their manufacturers because they actually help others. The love of money will sometimes result in good as well as evil.

But the bottom line is that we're too quick to blame others for having what we want for ourselves. And we resent the fact that some have succeeded where we've failed. After all, all we want to do is walk a mile in their Pradas.

Next episode: “The Elephant And Insurance” – Massive coverage.

i     Some definitions are in order: “Fair”: If I benefit from it. “Unfair”: If someone else benefits from it. (Or benefits more than I do.)

ii     At least most of them.

iii    The argument may be made, moreover, that the love of money isn't evil at all. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are cited as unalienable [sic] rights in the Declaration of Independence, where “the pursuit of Happiness” is a generalization of “property” – including money – which was George Mason's terminology in his draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He was citing the philosophy of John Locke. The final version of the Declaration spoke of “the means of acquiring and possessing property.” However much we may strive for it ourselves, that's not something we admire in others.

iv     Actually reason has nothing to do with it.

v     Serial Murder – Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators – FBI, 2005

vi     More realistically, we want to bring them down to our level. Actually, we'd like them in jail with their wealth divided among the rest of us. Especially me.

vii    Ideally we'll get some of their money. It's not socialism to correct the deficiencies of capitalism. They got the money by soaking us anyway.

viii    Or the government.

ix     The possibility of the absence of government services is often all that is necessary to bring politicians into line, although bad publicity is also a threat. And since union votes will be important in the next election, the promise of union support is a powerful tool. If an industrialist offers money to help get the same votes, however, he is evil.

x     There may be a requirement that you report and pay taxes on those purchase, but that's far too complicated.

xi    Of course that doesn't mean people won't try. I heard on the radio today (March 30^th) that the Mega Millions jackpot for tonight's drawing will be over half a billion dollars. I doubt that any of the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd or other members of the ninety-nine percent will buy tickets, because if they win they'll become part of the despised one percent. But if that's the case, if ninety-nine percent of the population don't participate, how do the prizes get so big. I guess that they'll swallow their pride and accept the designation for enough money. I know that I would. Of course I'd never buy a ticket.

xii     Or if you overhear something. Eavesdropping isn't your fault. Someone else is talking too loud. And you'd be a fool not to take advantage of what you hear. The person revealing the information is to blame.

xiii    Especially that in cash. And you probably wouldn't hesitate to pay someone else in cash – especially if he tells you that he won't have to charge you tax that way.