Brothers Sepp and Sohl make up the Canadian duo Blurred Vision, avoiding using their last names for obvious reasons and ties to Iran, have updated Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" for the purpose that it was always meant for, as a protest against incorrect use of authority. And now, youth in Iran are downloading, passing along to one another and its become a rallying cry for freedom, both political and intellectual. This song has given strength to millions the world over regarding their being under foot of oppressive parents, and governments.
Much in line with his and the band Pink Floyd's Humanitarian efforts over the years, bassist Roger Waters, who penned the song originally in 1979, has given this good blessings on their use of his song. So, they are free to push ahead on a very cool adventure.
When NPR's Guy Raz asked if the duo would ever perform the song with Pink Floyd — in Iran, the brothers said they'd be happy to, if it became politically feasible. In fact, they say Iran can be thought of as a birthplace of rock and roll.
I think that's stretching it a bit. But I appreciate where they are coming from, and I certainly bow to the elements of R&R that is owed to this ancient culture, of those who would "roam the ancient lands, and drink wine, and speak poetry and sing, surrounded by women."
Here's to them. And here's to hoping no one tries to kill Sepp and Sohl for only doing what governments should do, care about their people and give them the freedom to be happy and live full rich lives as they decide is appropriate. The world needs these kinds of inspiring anthems.
You go, Kids!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Abusive Satanic cults. Only in Germany, right? Best to hope so.
Ever see, Rosemary's Baby? Cult takes over husband, he helps his innocent wife to become impregnated by Satan, she bears, I suppose, the AntiChrist? Think all that is Baush prattle? Well, perhaps the supernatural elements, but people being evil has never been far fetched.
It would see that in Germany, there is a strong sect of delusional Satanic inspired criminals who have raised their daughters into a ridiculous cult with prostitution, murder, sacrifices, etc., etc., etc. Sad and predictable.
A woman named Laura, who was born into such a world in the Muenster region in western Germany, has come out and told her story. She tells of trying to be seen by the public as normal, while secretly living a life of cult pressured abuse, all supported by her criminally abusive parents. These are the kinds of things that can be hard to prove. Are they unbelievably criminal? Is their daughter, insane? No one ever wants to get involved in these things without hard proof. And one might suspect, they are very careful not to leave any laying around.
Alfons Strodt, capitular in the Catholic Diocese of Osnabrueck, has helped ex cult members. "In the beginning, I had to process all of this alone," he said. "People would tell me to stop making up such stories.
"I'm grateful that our bishop and the vicar-general now believe me and realize that it is an issue that can no longer be kept under wraps," he said. "Now, the victims can get some of the help they need."
For a more complete account of this story, see the Deutsche Welle, August, Friday the 13th, 2010 article
It would see that in Germany, there is a strong sect of delusional Satanic inspired criminals who have raised their daughters into a ridiculous cult with prostitution, murder, sacrifices, etc., etc., etc. Sad and predictable.
A woman named Laura, who was born into such a world in the Muenster region in western Germany, has come out and told her story. She tells of trying to be seen by the public as normal, while secretly living a life of cult pressured abuse, all supported by her criminally abusive parents. These are the kinds of things that can be hard to prove. Are they unbelievably criminal? Is their daughter, insane? No one ever wants to get involved in these things without hard proof. And one might suspect, they are very careful not to leave any laying around.
Alfons Strodt, capitular in the Catholic Diocese of Osnabrueck, has helped ex cult members. "In the beginning, I had to process all of this alone," he said. "People would tell me to stop making up such stories.
"I'm grateful that our bishop and the vicar-general now believe me and realize that it is an issue that can no longer be kept under wraps," he said. "Now, the victims can get some of the help they need."
For a more complete account of this story, see the Deutsche Welle, August, Friday the 13th, 2010 article
Showtime's new show, The Big C
I just watched, "The Big C", pilot. It was on just after my favorite show, Weeds.
I read a review of "C" today on NPR by David Bianculli is TV critic for TVWorthWatching.com, that was really quite negative, though it had good things to say about Laura Linney, who has the lead playing Cathy.
So, I expected little from the show. Which actually, is always the best way to watch something for the first time, don't you think? David Bianculli's review had said that the show as like a bad cartoon. Or something like that. And maybe it is kind of like a cartoon, but I don't think it would work in that vein, like a Family Guy, or a Simpsons. I needs the live actors to pull it off. Anyway, I think most of what the reviewer said was valid. But I realized, that didn't make it a show I wouldn't enjoy watching.
Still....
I think that any show that has any thing to do with someone breaking with their humdrum, doldrums of a reality, and starts LIVING, starts to enjoy Life, starts to breathe the fresh air once again, is worthy of note. Because, we need more of this kind of thing. Weeds is a lot like that, but for a different reason. Nancy, in Weeds, always seems to be reacting to something. But, C is about someone doing exactly what we need to do more of, change our lives because we suddenly wake up and realize what we are letting slip by. Our Life.
Like Cathy's homeless brother in C, telling her near the end of the pilot: "You're getting your "weird" back on, sis."
And that's exactly what more of us need to do in our own lives.
Live.
I read a review of "C" today on NPR by David Bianculli is TV critic for TVWorthWatching.com, that was really quite negative, though it had good things to say about Laura Linney, who has the lead playing Cathy.
So, I expected little from the show. Which actually, is always the best way to watch something for the first time, don't you think? David Bianculli's review had said that the show as like a bad cartoon. Or something like that. And maybe it is kind of like a cartoon, but I don't think it would work in that vein, like a Family Guy, or a Simpsons. I needs the live actors to pull it off. Anyway, I think most of what the reviewer said was valid. But I realized, that didn't make it a show I wouldn't enjoy watching.
Still....
I think that any show that has any thing to do with someone breaking with their humdrum, doldrums of a reality, and starts LIVING, starts to enjoy Life, starts to breathe the fresh air once again, is worthy of note. Because, we need more of this kind of thing. Weeds is a lot like that, but for a different reason. Nancy, in Weeds, always seems to be reacting to something. But, C is about someone doing exactly what we need to do more of, change our lives because we suddenly wake up and realize what we are letting slip by. Our Life.
Like Cathy's homeless brother in C, telling her near the end of the pilot: "You're getting your "weird" back on, sis."
And that's exactly what more of us need to do in our own lives.
Live.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Breast Implant superbugs from South Asia?
Thinking about shaping up that part of you that has always felt to you like its a little under the weather? Want bigger breasts, ladies? Or a fully posterior? A more perfect nose? How would you feel about those new breasts dropping off, or that nose, or that new butt, or simply dropping dead all together?
Researchers have found a new superbug living in these areas specially enhanced by plastic surgeries performed in South Asia. Plastic surgery patients have carried a new class of superbugs resistant to almost all antibiotics from South Asia to Britain and they could spread worldwide, researchers reported Wednesday.
"Many hospital infections that were already difficult to treat have become even more impervious to drugs thanks to a recently discovered gene that can jump across different species of bacteria.
This so-called NDM-1 gene was first identified last year by Cardiff University's Timothy Walsh in two types of bacteria -- Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli -- in a Swedish patient admitted to hospital in India. Worryingly, the new NDM-1 bacteria are resistant even to carbapenems, a group of antibiotics often reserved as a last resort for emergency treatment for multi-drug resistant bugs."
"Checking hospital patients with suspect symptoms, they found 44 cases -- 1.5 percent of those screened -- in Chennai, and 26 (eight percent) in Haryana, both in India. They likewise found the superbug in Bangladesh and Pakistan, as well 37 cases in Britain, where several patients had recently traveled to India or Pakistan for cosmetic surgery."
"India also provides cosmetic surgery for other Europeans and Americans, and it is likely that NDM-1 will spread worldwide," said the study, published in the British medical journal The Lancet.
So, it looks like if you're going to get that surgery, pay up, rather than getting the cheaper version from Asia, just get it from home. Unless you live in India of course.
AFP article on Yahoo News
Researchers have found a new superbug living in these areas specially enhanced by plastic surgeries performed in South Asia. Plastic surgery patients have carried a new class of superbugs resistant to almost all antibiotics from South Asia to Britain and they could spread worldwide, researchers reported Wednesday.
"Many hospital infections that were already difficult to treat have become even more impervious to drugs thanks to a recently discovered gene that can jump across different species of bacteria.
This so-called NDM-1 gene was first identified last year by Cardiff University's Timothy Walsh in two types of bacteria -- Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli -- in a Swedish patient admitted to hospital in India. Worryingly, the new NDM-1 bacteria are resistant even to carbapenems, a group of antibiotics often reserved as a last resort for emergency treatment for multi-drug resistant bugs."
"Checking hospital patients with suspect symptoms, they found 44 cases -- 1.5 percent of those screened -- in Chennai, and 26 (eight percent) in Haryana, both in India. They likewise found the superbug in Bangladesh and Pakistan, as well 37 cases in Britain, where several patients had recently traveled to India or Pakistan for cosmetic surgery."
"India also provides cosmetic surgery for other Europeans and Americans, and it is likely that NDM-1 will spread worldwide," said the study, published in the British medical journal The Lancet.
So, it looks like if you're going to get that surgery, pay up, rather than getting the cheaper version from Asia, just get it from home. Unless you live in India of course.
AFP article on Yahoo News
Siskel and Ebert's "At the Movies" final bow
This past weekend was the final show for what was originally a local show, a radio show and eventually a nationally syndicated TV show where these two critics review and appraisal was highly sought after.
This all started in 1975, years before I ever knew about them. I didn't discover them until the '80s and came to love their rivalry and friendship. Until Siskel died. Others have taken over the show since then but because of the internet mostly I would presume, they are really a kind of anachronism now.
About critics. Many people misunderstand what a critic is, or what function they server for us, the viewing public. You do not look for a critic that agrees with your point of view; because that is hard if not impossible, to do. What you want is a critic that is consistent in their view, who will let you know, what you are getting into by seeing a certain film. In having the two of them, you got an even better view.
I got to know, after a while, that even if they both hated a film, I might like it, or if one did for his reason, and the other didn't, for his, I would hate it. Or whatever combination is possible, I could make a decision. They weren't always right but in general, they were. Right, in the way that even if they were wrong, I could make an informed decision on what to do with my free time and money that night. The point is, to be able to know if you will want to pay your hard earned money, more importantly, to spend your valuable free time, to see this film or that film, or not. I have at times, not gone to see a film I wanted to see, went to see a film I hadn't considered and in the end, been pleased I did. All because of these critics' valued opinions.
I hadn't watched the show for a while, but then watched it one day, years ago. It was the same show. But something seemed odd about Siskel. I told people about it. It was like he was drunk, or on drugs. I assumed Ebert was going to be pissed off, thinking, how unprofessional, what with is being so critical of everything (I always agreed more with Siskel's film appraisals).
But that's not what I saw Ebert do. He was, in his one shot, looking at Siskel with a kind of affection, or love, for his partner who was having difficulty speaking. I think of it now and it brings emotions forward in a most uncomfortable and satiating way. I later learned that was one of, if not the, last appearances of Siskel on their show, because he was dying and then passed on, to be seen by his public no more.
It is the passing of yet another era now that their show is no longer being aired. It is a sign of the times, it is a perhaps progressive move into the future, but it is also a sad, melancholy thing to behold. They will, by some of us, be missed. Because even though we have not watched the show in sometime, even though neither of them were on the show anymore, it was comforting, in some way, in knowing they were still out there, their legacy being carried on in some way. But that time has passed, and they will be missed.
I was touched and pleased to hear Siskel's voice once again on the NPR Fresh Air archived interview from 1998.
This all started in 1975, years before I ever knew about them. I didn't discover them until the '80s and came to love their rivalry and friendship. Until Siskel died. Others have taken over the show since then but because of the internet mostly I would presume, they are really a kind of anachronism now.
About critics. Many people misunderstand what a critic is, or what function they server for us, the viewing public. You do not look for a critic that agrees with your point of view; because that is hard if not impossible, to do. What you want is a critic that is consistent in their view, who will let you know, what you are getting into by seeing a certain film. In having the two of them, you got an even better view.
I got to know, after a while, that even if they both hated a film, I might like it, or if one did for his reason, and the other didn't, for his, I would hate it. Or whatever combination is possible, I could make a decision. They weren't always right but in general, they were. Right, in the way that even if they were wrong, I could make an informed decision on what to do with my free time and money that night. The point is, to be able to know if you will want to pay your hard earned money, more importantly, to spend your valuable free time, to see this film or that film, or not. I have at times, not gone to see a film I wanted to see, went to see a film I hadn't considered and in the end, been pleased I did. All because of these critics' valued opinions.
I hadn't watched the show for a while, but then watched it one day, years ago. It was the same show. But something seemed odd about Siskel. I told people about it. It was like he was drunk, or on drugs. I assumed Ebert was going to be pissed off, thinking, how unprofessional, what with is being so critical of everything (I always agreed more with Siskel's film appraisals).
But that's not what I saw Ebert do. He was, in his one shot, looking at Siskel with a kind of affection, or love, for his partner who was having difficulty speaking. I think of it now and it brings emotions forward in a most uncomfortable and satiating way. I later learned that was one of, if not the, last appearances of Siskel on their show, because he was dying and then passed on, to be seen by his public no more.
It is the passing of yet another era now that their show is no longer being aired. It is a sign of the times, it is a perhaps progressive move into the future, but it is also a sad, melancholy thing to behold. They will, by some of us, be missed. Because even though we have not watched the show in sometime, even though neither of them were on the show anymore, it was comforting, in some way, in knowing they were still out there, their legacy being carried on in some way. But that time has passed, and they will be missed.
I was touched and pleased to hear Siskel's voice once again on the NPR Fresh Air archived interview from 1998.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
UFO in Washington today, scrambles 2 F-15s
The Associated Press Related SEATTLE —
"Emergency agencies across Western Washington are getting calls from numerous people who heard and felt a double boom about 1:50 p.m. Tuesday."
A touch spooky today....
Both my kids today, called me. They said, "did you hear those two explosions?"
I said, "No."
They were a little nervous. So I looked into it. I knew President Obama was in Seattle for Senator Patty Murry's election campaign, I thought maybe a celebration, fly overs, sonic booms? Or maybe, something bad? My son was near the nuclear sub base at Bangor. He said Jets were flying over head in a search pattern. That made me suspect sonic boom even more than when I first heard there were two loud sounding explosions.
Trust me, almost always, anything juicy like this, will turn out to be nothing. It used to be that way anyway, until, 9/11. As it turns out, just as I was telling people, its probably just some wayward pilot who didn't hear about the restriction and sure enough, just a pilot coming back from Lake Chelan in a float plane, heading to a plane harbor on Lake Washington.
First on line with an update: The Oregonian, a newspaper out of Portland indicating there were many region wide reports. Finally, KOMO TV 4 online came up with a report that there was an invasion of FAA restricted air space. Initially, a UFO:
"F-15 fighter jets scrambled from Portland to deal with an unknown aircraft that had entered restricted air space over Western Washington caused two sonic booms that were heard across a wide swath of the region, the FAA reported Tuesday."
Nothing unusual really. When you restrict airspace, this frequently happens. But since 9/11, they are not screwing around anymore. This is not any longer, your daddy's emergency alert:
"A spokesman with the Oregon Air National Guard said two F-15s from their 142nd Fighter Wing were scrambled on a "real world mission" from their base at Portland International Airport but could not elaborate on what the mission entailed."
When they break the sound barrier to get somewhere and bring on this kind of notoriety in the media, they are NOT screwing around. These fliers were on the way to a real threat and taking it as an a priori that they would take care of business.
Well, one good thing about it, that I told my kids of, was that once you hear a sonic boom, you can usually tell the next time what you're hearing. Although, the last big earth quake we had around here, started unusually with a boom reminiscent of, but I even then I had realized wasn't, what sounded like a jet breaking the sound barrier. With this one there were reports of curtains blowing in people's windows, not usually an earth quake kind of behavior.
Anyway, even though the jets arrived after the plane hand landed, Thanks guys (or girls, or a mixture therein)! And have a beer, on me.
KOMO News release
"Emergency agencies across Western Washington are getting calls from numerous people who heard and felt a double boom about 1:50 p.m. Tuesday."
A touch spooky today....
Both my kids today, called me. They said, "did you hear those two explosions?"
I said, "No."
They were a little nervous. So I looked into it. I knew President Obama was in Seattle for Senator Patty Murry's election campaign, I thought maybe a celebration, fly overs, sonic booms? Or maybe, something bad? My son was near the nuclear sub base at Bangor. He said Jets were flying over head in a search pattern. That made me suspect sonic boom even more than when I first heard there were two loud sounding explosions.
Trust me, almost always, anything juicy like this, will turn out to be nothing. It used to be that way anyway, until, 9/11. As it turns out, just as I was telling people, its probably just some wayward pilot who didn't hear about the restriction and sure enough, just a pilot coming back from Lake Chelan in a float plane, heading to a plane harbor on Lake Washington.
First on line with an update: The Oregonian, a newspaper out of Portland indicating there were many region wide reports. Finally, KOMO TV 4 online came up with a report that there was an invasion of FAA restricted air space. Initially, a UFO:
"F-15 fighter jets scrambled from Portland to deal with an unknown aircraft that had entered restricted air space over Western Washington caused two sonic booms that were heard across a wide swath of the region, the FAA reported Tuesday."
Nothing unusual really. When you restrict airspace, this frequently happens. But since 9/11, they are not screwing around anymore. This is not any longer, your daddy's emergency alert:
"A spokesman with the Oregon Air National Guard said two F-15s from their 142nd Fighter Wing were scrambled on a "real world mission" from their base at Portland International Airport but could not elaborate on what the mission entailed."
When they break the sound barrier to get somewhere and bring on this kind of notoriety in the media, they are NOT screwing around. These fliers were on the way to a real threat and taking it as an a priori that they would take care of business.
Well, one good thing about it, that I told my kids of, was that once you hear a sonic boom, you can usually tell the next time what you're hearing. Although, the last big earth quake we had around here, started unusually with a boom reminiscent of, but I even then I had realized wasn't, what sounded like a jet breaking the sound barrier. With this one there were reports of curtains blowing in people's windows, not usually an earth quake kind of behavior.
Anyway, even though the jets arrived after the plane hand landed, Thanks guys (or girls, or a mixture therein)! And have a beer, on me.
KOMO News release
Why conditional love works, or not
When you are in a relationship, with people, friends, lovers, kids, family, you have two choices in how to interact with your affections: conditional, or unconditional love.
Conditional love leaves room for excess, with children specifically, to abuse the relationship and get away with possibly horrible, horrible things. Unconditional love gives one a lot more leeway in handling relationships. But, have room for screwing it up. Some women like to use conditional love by withholding sex from their lover. Just about all therapists agree, this is a bad thing for a relationship and usually ends poorly. Men traditionally have used power or money in the same way with women.
Right?
Well, these are adults. They should be able to figure it out. Read a book, see a therapist, talk to your friends (and be honest). But for children, they have no chance of control and are fully in our care. If you give love to your child, regardless of what is going on, then why can't they just take, take, take and have no regard for what is right or wrong? Love is a powerful thing after all. If they do something wrong, and you show them love, won't they think that they can just get away with what they did and do it again and again? But if you pull your love from them, isn't it extremely affective and won't they crave the love even more feeling obligated to always follow your desires? They will do anything at that point, to gain that love back. Right?
Dr. Jim Taylor says conditional love is good. But you can use, and many, many people do, the wrong kind of conditional love. Dr. Taylor is internationally recognized for his work in the psychology of performance in business, parenting, and sport and has extensive credentials, available on his website.
He mentions "outcome love" and "dangling-carrot love". Outcome love is when your child, as example, fails in a task and you react very negatively, pulling your love and even doing things that exemplify it, saying you don't love them, breaking their things, etc. Children tend to react poorly to this. With dangling-carrot love, its perhaps best to quote Dr. Taylor here:
"One of the obstacles to children's success and happiness occurs when parents use their love to threaten and control them. Love becomes a weapon when parents make their love conditional on their children's success or failure, what I call, "outcome love".
"Another painful and destructive form of conditional love is "dangling-carrot" love, in which love is promised by parents and held seemingly within reach, but is never truly attainable.
"If you are a parent who communicates dangling-carrot love, you would show it by never being completely satisfied with how your children perform. For example, your child brings home a test in which he earned a score of 94 and you ask, "why did you miss three questions?" Or, your daughter receives a standing ovation for her dance performance, but the first thing you say is that she missed three steps in her choreography. In both examples, your children succeeded by most anyone's standards, yet their achievements were still not completely worthy of your love. Why do parents use this destructive kind of love? Probably in the mistaken belief that if parents give complete and unlimited approval of their children’s achievements, they will never achieve up to their fullest abilities."
Having seen these types first hand in the history of individuals I've been in relationships with, I've seen how very destructive it can be to a child; for the rest of their life, and on into their children's lives.
Dr. Taylor goes on:
"Instead of outcome or dangling-carrot love, you should use "value love", in which love is conditional on your children's adopting essential values and acting in socially appropriate and ethical ways. Value love nurtures the development of positive values and moral behavior, fosters healthy growth, and encourages achievement and happiness."
"Finally, children raised with outcome and dangling-carrot love internalize their parents’ style of love and use it as the basis for loving themselves. In other words, they come to only love themselves when they live up to the now-internalized expectations and they hate themselves when they fail to do so. Children raised with value love, by contrast, ingrain that healthy style of love and are able to love themselves independent of the successes or failures they experience in their lives."
Dr. Taylor may have a point in his contentions. But it worries me. I suspect that unconditional love may be more affective overall. Why? Because most of us have to live our lives and simply aren't smart enough to use conditional love correctly or in all instances and the child will suffer for it. In using unconditional love, but, still using corrective and more importantly, educational methods, I believe that people in general will simply have a far better result.
In this way, you love your child always, but when they are wrong, you correct them: "I love you, but you did not do this right." Or, "what you did was wrong and we shouldn't do those kinds of things. I love you, and I want you to be the best person you can be."
To ever pull your love, for any reason, is destructive. If you use conditional love, you give to them, a polarizing effect. Life really is a series of grayness, seldom with a black and white, right and wrong reality. Too many people believe there is, for the most part you find this in religious types. But that view is lazy and uneducated.
Too many times in a situation involving a good and bad person, both are actually doing things for what they believe to be a good reason, and they appear bad to the other because their view is that they are the good individual in this situation. I've infrequently, found myself realizing later that I was actually the bad one in a situation but had been too close to things to see that at the time. But, in hindsight I later realized I might have done things differently.
In teaching a child that there is only right and wrong, it simplifies life for them. This is good, for a while. Much like allowing them to believing "magic" gives them an ability to see the "magic" in life all around us. Much like a swat on the butt is good to teach them things that could save their life (getting burned by fire, running into a busy street, etc.). It is something you do when the child has yet the capability for communicating.
Before a child understands words, if they reach for a flame on the stove, you show them "No" by having them reach for the flame, slap their hand and say "No!", about a half second after. This way, they understand the movement, feel a negative affect in the action, and hear a word they will hear again and again over the years, that is associated with avoidance behavior. It takes a partial moment for them to conceive the word "no", for it to hit the brain the same time as the slight pain in the hand. This has the double effect of now pairing a word that can be used later and being associated with a "stop-action" response.
Once a child can understand, especially when they can appropriately and verbally respond, parents should no longer use pain but words, in managing their behavior. Many parents make the mistake to continue beyond that time. They spank young children, then continue to do so long after its effective.
First, spanking is typically too much response to bad behaviors; second, using a spanking after the child can communicate is innately offensive to the child and even they do not know why that is so. Also, a spanking can hit its point of usefulness quickly. They child may believe they deserve it, but how much? One swat? Two? Three? At what point is it useful and then, counter-productive? This can lead to confusion and eventually, other negative emotions such as bitterness, anger and eventually, hatred. Then, you really have a problem.
To sum up, love is very effective in relationships. Give it some thought, don't misuse it. And if you are confused by all this, then look into it, educate yourself and work out how to use it appropriately. Like anything else, and certainly, anything I ever talk about in these blogs, don't take my word for it, but figure it out for yourself.
Conditional love leaves room for excess, with children specifically, to abuse the relationship and get away with possibly horrible, horrible things. Unconditional love gives one a lot more leeway in handling relationships. But, have room for screwing it up. Some women like to use conditional love by withholding sex from their lover. Just about all therapists agree, this is a bad thing for a relationship and usually ends poorly. Men traditionally have used power or money in the same way with women.
Right?
Well, these are adults. They should be able to figure it out. Read a book, see a therapist, talk to your friends (and be honest). But for children, they have no chance of control and are fully in our care. If you give love to your child, regardless of what is going on, then why can't they just take, take, take and have no regard for what is right or wrong? Love is a powerful thing after all. If they do something wrong, and you show them love, won't they think that they can just get away with what they did and do it again and again? But if you pull your love from them, isn't it extremely affective and won't they crave the love even more feeling obligated to always follow your desires? They will do anything at that point, to gain that love back. Right?
Dr. Jim Taylor says conditional love is good. But you can use, and many, many people do, the wrong kind of conditional love. Dr. Taylor is internationally recognized for his work in the psychology of performance in business, parenting, and sport and has extensive credentials, available on his website.
He mentions "outcome love" and "dangling-carrot love". Outcome love is when your child, as example, fails in a task and you react very negatively, pulling your love and even doing things that exemplify it, saying you don't love them, breaking their things, etc. Children tend to react poorly to this. With dangling-carrot love, its perhaps best to quote Dr. Taylor here:
"One of the obstacles to children's success and happiness occurs when parents use their love to threaten and control them. Love becomes a weapon when parents make their love conditional on their children's success or failure, what I call, "outcome love".
"Another painful and destructive form of conditional love is "dangling-carrot" love, in which love is promised by parents and held seemingly within reach, but is never truly attainable.
"If you are a parent who communicates dangling-carrot love, you would show it by never being completely satisfied with how your children perform. For example, your child brings home a test in which he earned a score of 94 and you ask, "why did you miss three questions?" Or, your daughter receives a standing ovation for her dance performance, but the first thing you say is that she missed three steps in her choreography. In both examples, your children succeeded by most anyone's standards, yet their achievements were still not completely worthy of your love. Why do parents use this destructive kind of love? Probably in the mistaken belief that if parents give complete and unlimited approval of their children’s achievements, they will never achieve up to their fullest abilities."
Having seen these types first hand in the history of individuals I've been in relationships with, I've seen how very destructive it can be to a child; for the rest of their life, and on into their children's lives.
Dr. Taylor goes on:
"Instead of outcome or dangling-carrot love, you should use "value love", in which love is conditional on your children's adopting essential values and acting in socially appropriate and ethical ways. Value love nurtures the development of positive values and moral behavior, fosters healthy growth, and encourages achievement and happiness."
"Finally, children raised with outcome and dangling-carrot love internalize their parents’ style of love and use it as the basis for loving themselves. In other words, they come to only love themselves when they live up to the now-internalized expectations and they hate themselves when they fail to do so. Children raised with value love, by contrast, ingrain that healthy style of love and are able to love themselves independent of the successes or failures they experience in their lives."
Dr. Taylor may have a point in his contentions. But it worries me. I suspect that unconditional love may be more affective overall. Why? Because most of us have to live our lives and simply aren't smart enough to use conditional love correctly or in all instances and the child will suffer for it. In using unconditional love, but, still using corrective and more importantly, educational methods, I believe that people in general will simply have a far better result.
In this way, you love your child always, but when they are wrong, you correct them: "I love you, but you did not do this right." Or, "what you did was wrong and we shouldn't do those kinds of things. I love you, and I want you to be the best person you can be."
To ever pull your love, for any reason, is destructive. If you use conditional love, you give to them, a polarizing effect. Life really is a series of grayness, seldom with a black and white, right and wrong reality. Too many people believe there is, for the most part you find this in religious types. But that view is lazy and uneducated.
Too many times in a situation involving a good and bad person, both are actually doing things for what they believe to be a good reason, and they appear bad to the other because their view is that they are the good individual in this situation. I've infrequently, found myself realizing later that I was actually the bad one in a situation but had been too close to things to see that at the time. But, in hindsight I later realized I might have done things differently.
In teaching a child that there is only right and wrong, it simplifies life for them. This is good, for a while. Much like allowing them to believing "magic" gives them an ability to see the "magic" in life all around us. Much like a swat on the butt is good to teach them things that could save their life (getting burned by fire, running into a busy street, etc.). It is something you do when the child has yet the capability for communicating.
Before a child understands words, if they reach for a flame on the stove, you show them "No" by having them reach for the flame, slap their hand and say "No!", about a half second after. This way, they understand the movement, feel a negative affect in the action, and hear a word they will hear again and again over the years, that is associated with avoidance behavior. It takes a partial moment for them to conceive the word "no", for it to hit the brain the same time as the slight pain in the hand. This has the double effect of now pairing a word that can be used later and being associated with a "stop-action" response.
Once a child can understand, especially when they can appropriately and verbally respond, parents should no longer use pain but words, in managing their behavior. Many parents make the mistake to continue beyond that time. They spank young children, then continue to do so long after its effective.
First, spanking is typically too much response to bad behaviors; second, using a spanking after the child can communicate is innately offensive to the child and even they do not know why that is so. Also, a spanking can hit its point of usefulness quickly. They child may believe they deserve it, but how much? One swat? Two? Three? At what point is it useful and then, counter-productive? This can lead to confusion and eventually, other negative emotions such as bitterness, anger and eventually, hatred. Then, you really have a problem.
To sum up, love is very effective in relationships. Give it some thought, don't misuse it. And if you are confused by all this, then look into it, educate yourself and work out how to use it appropriately. Like anything else, and certainly, anything I ever talk about in these blogs, don't take my word for it, but figure it out for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)