Disclaimer: I know nothing about raising children. I have never raised a child and am scared to death of the prospect.

Saw an interesting looking book this w/end[1].
It has a very effective cover and title:

The Epidemic
The Rot of American Culture, Absentee and Permissive Parenting, and the Resultant Plague of Joyless, Selfish Children.

Epidemic

A sharp book, well designed and produced.
So, why give a shit?

The really interesting part is on the back cover[2].
Shaw lists

15 Ways to Ruin Your Child and Your Life

Here they are.

1. Don’t plan ahead. Don’t think early on about arranging a secure home in which to raise a child. Especially, don’t pick a husband or wife with character traits that would make him or her a true partner and supporter as you rear your children.

2. Leave your infant to be raised by an inadequate and unconnected caretaker for too many hours.

3. Keep yourself stressed and busy. Be exhausted when you come home. It’s especially effective to feel guilty about being away.

4. Give in to your child’s whims on everything and demand nothing in return. That will make up for the neglect.

5. Facilitate your child’s ascent into the world of consumerism. Accommodate his endless urges for the latest, coolest, most attractive, most superficial things.

6. Let your child think he is the boss of the universe. That way you can avoid frustrating or regulating his.

7. Live without thoughts of the larger meaning of your life and your child’s life.

8. Don’t subscribe to a code of ethics or morals that can override your own impulses – and definitely don’t expose your child to such a code.

9. Be sure your three- or four-year-old child sleeps in your bed, suckles, wears disposable underwear, and is pushed around in a stroller while you get your exercise.

10. Don’t supervise your children’s relationships.

11. Let your child enjoy all the TV, videos, and video games he wants.

12. Act as though your child is on his own already.

13. Don’t take her out for genuine, loving times together with no interruptions. Don’t just hang out and have fun- it’s also effective for children to have their days scheduled to the minute.

14. Don’t mess with your child’s relationship to sex, drugs, tobacco and alcohol.

15. Never give your child chores or expect her to be a partner in running the house.

I generally like books that give advice in bulleted or numbered lists – it requires very little reading on my part.
I am willing to be a million bucks that very many people picked the book up, read the list and loooovveed it. I can even see many of them taking out a small piece of paper and writing some of the items down – not to mention the cellphone camera crew.
But there is a downside to lists like these; they generalise (out of neccessity) and they encourage you to accept the list in its entirety – take it or leave it.

Ruinous

Reading the list I was nodding my head up to number 14[3] – but what’s this, ‘Don’t mess with your child’s relationship to sex, drugs tobacco and alcohol.’?
Hmmmm, I don’t think so.
Nope, fuck you.

It’s not that the list is totally out of whack – as a matter of fact I agree with most items – but I suspect that the three items that I do disagree with are deal-breakers.
I contend that the wording of these three statements, while they are basically positive, reveals the foundation on which the book is built to be a traditional western-style familial-type society that is somehow very inflexible.
And I must stress that it’s not the gist of the statements – it’s the wording.

8. Don’t subscribe to a code of ethics or morals that can override your own impulses…

This is a very tough statement.
It pushes the idea that you cannot be a responsible parent without a defined (coded) set of ethics or morals that governs your own life.
What’s more is that defines a hard boundary for critical thinking – ‘Hey Ho kiddo! Sure, sure we can talk about these and these, but oops, nope – that’s a moral thing – better not mess with them apples, hey!’.

10. Don’t supervise your children’s relationships.
…
14. Don’t mess with your child’s relationship to sex, drugs, tobacco and alcohol.

Hmmm… these are the only two items on the list that includes the word relationship.
It encompasses both externalised, social relationships – getting on with other people – and internal relationships – getting on with yourself[4].
That makes the choice of verbs very significant – ‘supervise’ and ‘mess’.
‘Supervise’ and ‘mess’. Hmmm… so you’re not saying ‘be involved in’, you’re going with imperative forms… You’re talking about control, aren’t you.
Hmmmm… nope, fuck you.
Even if the word ‘mess’ is used colloquially – the fact is that people are reading this numbered list as the sales pitch of your book. And your sales pitch requires that I not only submit myself to a set of rules (a code) that has been defined for me, but also that actively take a controlling position to apply those rules to my child’s relationships.
Nope, I don’t buy it.
Perhaps I’m being over-critical and if Dr. Shaw and I were to talk pragmatically we would find that in the grey reality of the world we actually agree.
But in black and white ink there is something sinister behind the scenes.

Check out lashing-them-together.html for another take on Dr. Shaw.

[1] Though judging by the fact that it was at one of those end-of-summer mega-sales it was either (i) not very interesting to anyone else or (ii) totally overstocked by blockbuster-seeking buyers. My money is on option (ii).
[2] And no-doubt also inside, which I didn’t bother to read.
[3] And I was well on the way to buying it too! [4] I have to qualify this. My relationship to s, d, t and a is ALL internal – it’s all about me. Even where there was peer pressure involved it had nothing to do with the actual external people. That is my experience on which I am basing my reading of this. Your mileage may vary.

Cape Town still has some undisputed heroes – the firefighters who go into overdrive each summer controlling the fires on the Cape Peninsula.
I have never encountered anyone with anything other than praise for their work, nor of anyone who doesn’t support the budget for the rockin’ Titan helicopters[1] that they bring over every summer.

Firefighters

Life in Cape Town is closely linked to the health of the mountains in the area (especially Table Mountain).
In dry winters the only thing people care about is whether the mountain is getting any rain. In summer there is nothing worse than a fire on the mountain.

We are currently experiencing a heatwave and this means that the firefighters have been busy.
The Cape Times front page today features a shot of a water drop from a helicopter over the peninsula.

Cape Times – 25 January 2007

I really should join the Cape Town Volunteer Wildfire Services – even if only to help out with the removal of alien vegetation.
The pics of from www.capefires.com. Rock on!

Fire at Night

Fire Helicopter

[1] of which the coolest is the rockin’ twin-rotored Kamov KA-32. Yeah!

Some time ago I wrote what I thought would be the first in a series of posts on the relationship between Taoism and anarchism. It turns out that I did a really terrible job of it.

I’ve started getting my thoughts together for the second part of this, but upon re-reading the first part I feel that I have to revisit it to get some sort of coherent idea from it.

So, to recap; Taoism is an Eastern philosophical and religious tradition based on the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.
Taoist history and concepts are interpreted in vastly divergent ways and the meaning of particular passages often bear little resemblance from one interpretation to the next.
This is partly due to the vague/cryptic/ambiguous/subtle wording and the ancient history[1] of the founding texts. But it is also related to the spirit in which these texts are presented.

A defining feature of Taoist thought is the rejection of the idea that the Tao as a concept can be strictly defined or understood.
The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are commonly translated as follows:

The way which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way.
The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name.

Tao Te Ching

Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu

In addition to the vast room to manuva that the texts allow, the variations in defining Taoism are also due to a logical result of the above two lines.
Each person’s interpretation of and relation to the Tao is different and trying to limit any understanding or wording of Taoist ideas is futile and counter-productive.

That said, Taoism has few central concepts that are taught as foundations to a life that is in harmony with the Tao.
These include the principle of Wu-Wei and the pursuit of a simple and natural life in which a balanced acceptance of continual change[2] is prized.

Taoist statue to Lao Tzu

*

Anarchism is a much younger tradition which really only gained traction at the turn of the 19th century with the writings of William Godwin and Joseph Proudhon.
In much the same way as Taoism, anarchism is also a disputed term and its many traditions and schools are often aggressively at odds with one another[3] over the interpretation of aspects of the concept.

Traditional Anarchist Flag

Despite the overwhelming diversity/chaos[4] of the anarchist movement it is still possible to give a central concept shared by all forms of anarchist thought.
This might not be the primary idea of every tradition/school – but it is(as far as I can tell) central to all.

Anarchism rejects all forms of institutionalised authority.

A Romanticised Anarchist Standard

Beyond this basic principle the anarchist world explodes into a million fragments and (often warring) factions.
I suppose that it is the natural result of the first principle: ‘Are you telling me that I cannot be a Jew and still an Anarchist? Well, fuck you!’

Activism/Revolt/Journalism

*

The connection between Taoism and anarchism exists (in its most basic form) within these aspects of the two traditions.

But first, apart from the view that early Taoism (especially the ideas of Lao Tzu) is possibly the most ancient expression of the anarchist imperative, Taoist and anarchist ideas seem contradictory.
Taoism is about harmony, balance and acceptance; anarchism is about revolution, struggle and radical change.
A significant portion of Taoism promotes seclusion, non-discourse and non-action; the largest anarchist schools promote vibrant socialism, debate, protest and (often violent) activism.
So how can they relate when they have such fundamentally different personalities?

Two crucial concerns link the two.
The first is the goal of both Taoism and anarchism. In simplest terms, both Taoism and anarchism are concerned with achieving a state[5] in which each person can live freely, unhindered by the pressure or morality or interference of any other person.
The second is the view that the current[6] social system does a terrible job of allowing such a state.
These are very powerful agreements which cut so deeply that the implementation details of these (where the two diverge in many instances) are of secondary concern.

The first agreement (freedom/liberty/natural harmony) is common to many philosophical and religious traditions[7], but Taoism and anarchism place an special emphasis on this.
In both these traditions freedom is non-negotiable – a fundamental requirement for a healthy life.
Furthermore, both traditions hold that there is nothing – nothing – that merits giving up the first principle. In Taoist thought not even the Tao itself disrupts the natural harmony – the Tao itself exists only within what is natural.

Human abides by earth
Earth abides by heaven
Heaven abides by Way(Tao)
Way abides by occurrence appearing of itself

Tao Te Ching

and

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s subordination.

Emma Goldman

The second agreement is a more practical one, aimed at a tangible problem: government.
Much of the Tao Te Ching is in fact a manual for governing in a just manner – often addressing the emperor directly and instructing the ruler on matters of state.
In that sense the Tao Te Ching does not promote the abolition of state, simply that the state should be run in accordance with the Tao – this is where the principle of Wu-Wei comes to prominence; action through non-action, ruling a kingdom in such a way that the people are unaware of[8] their government.

The Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.
If kings and lords observed this,
The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
If they still desired to act,
They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
Without form there is no desire.
Without desire there is tranquility.
In this way all things would be at peace.

Tao Te Ching

and

The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that ‘the best government is that which governs least,’ and that which governs least is no government at all.

Benjamin Tucker

*

In this way Taoism and anarchism stand together against society as it has existed for thousands of years[9].
The next question is what these two traditions propose to do about society – what path of transformation they pursue. Until part two, I will leave this question with the Taoist and anarchist traditions themselves.

Let nations grow smaller
and people fewer and fewer,

let weapons become rare
and superfluous,
let people feel death’s gravity again
and never wander far from home.
The boat and carriage will sit unused
and the sword and shield lie unnoticed.

Let people tie knot ropes for notation again
and never need anything more,

let them find pleasure in their food
and beauty in their clothes,
peace in their homes
and joys in their ancestral ways.

Then people in neighbouring nations will look across to each other,
their chickens and dogs calling back and forth,

and yet they’ll grow old and die
without bothering to exchange visits.

Tao Te Ching

and

Burn the fucker down!

anarchist

[1] Some 300 years passed between the lifetimes of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu alone.
[2] As often associated with the concept of Yin and Yang
[3] Have a look at the Wikipedia anarchism talk page for some real bun fights.
[4] Which in anarchist terms _must_ be seen as a strength rather than a weakness
[5] uhm, state, not State
[6] Current in the 6th century BC and today
[7] Many feel that Jesus was a textbook anarchist [8] And therefore unhindered by
[9] Which surely has its origins in the natural reality of humanity’s origin and development along with the other animal species on the planet. But that is a different story.

Here’s episodes 7 and 8 of TGSF.

Episode 7 is entitled Chain of Command in which Commander Flip’s career in the StarSquad organisation takes a turn for the good; proving that hard work never goes unrewarded.

Season 1, Episode 7

*

In episode 8 (part 2 of the 2-part saga: Is There Something You’re Not Telling Me?) Commander Flip and Computer’s relationship blossoms in the freedom and solitude of outer space.

Season 1, Episode 8

For lack of anything better to say (while I craft away at the next hillarious episode of TGFS) here’s some news.

Kerrrazy Weather Times!

Since our ridiculously balmy time in New York and Toronto I have been watching the US weather as it lurches from Fall to Spring to Winter and back to Spring on an ongoing basis.

Blue Mountain where we spent three days skiing on man-made snow is reporting temperatures between -1°C and -19 of the same.
So it seems that at least there winter has settled in – though they are still getting mostly flurries rather than real solid snow.

What’s more interesting/bizarre is the weather in the US where temperatures are yo-yoing all over the place, in California the Governator is looking for disaster relief for crops lost due to cold and Texas is covered in ice, but still no real snow some northern states where it should be white as a U.S.-based company’s South African workforce.

A pedestrian runs to cross a downtown Montreal street
Monday, Jan 15, 2007,
during the first snow storm to hit the city this winter.
(CP / Paul Chiasson)

The Neocon Newshound!

And on the neo-con front, here’s a refreshing approach to regime-change[1] in Iran. Michael Ledeen is a classic neo conservative who wants to export democracy and freedom[2] to arabic nations in the Middle East[3].
And for some time now he’s been advocating the boom-boom approach to bringing peace and `freedom` to the world.
But he does also have another, more interesting approach which he mentions in an interview with Salon.

I want to support the pro-democracy groups in Iranian society, which includes like 80 percent of the population.
I want to support them politically and financially if they want it.
I want to broadcast at them, exactly as we did into the Soviet empire during the Cold War. I want to replicate Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which we’re really not doing. I mean, they pretend to do it, but they really don’t. Farsi service on [the Voice of America] is sort of a replica of CBS News or something like that.
They want to be balanced; they give both sides. And we’re not giving them what they need, more than anything else, which is the experiences of people who have participated in successful nonviolent revolutions.

Michael Leeden

I am in no way a proponent of the notion of exporting any sort of ideology for the `betterment` of another society.
While I do support projects that aim to provide people living in `oppressive`[4] societies access to information, I don’t support his call to broadcast to the Iranians. It’s simply propaganda, no matter how you look at.
However, what I do appreciate about his approach is that he wants to promote non-violent change by supporting civic activism from within Iran.
Of course this is not because he is a pacifist who cherishes human life but because he believes that the US can achieve its goals without having to spend money and political capital on bombs.
But it is a more pragmatic take on the value of letting a society change itself if it wants to rather than just bombing the shit out of it for its own good.

It’s because people generally take it out of context. If you read what I said about the war, I said two things. I said, first of all, that it was much too military and much too little political, and that we should spend much more time supporting democratic forces in Iraq, the same thing I said about Iran, the same thing I said about the Soviet Union, et cetera. And the second thing that I said about the war before we went in was that Iran was the primary target and that we should not invade Iraq before we dealt with Iran, and that we could deal entirely politically with Iran and not militarily at all.

And yes, so once the national policy was that we were going to go militarily into Iraq, I supported it. But I kept on saying that we were going to have all these problems, and that it would have been better to do it the other way, and that dealing with Iran was inevitable, and so it has proven to be.

And all those people who think that my only position was that we should invade Iraq and send armies to invade Iraq just haven’t read what I wrote, or they haven’t read enough of it. And I will plead guilty to not having put those lines into everything I wrote, but you really can’t. You can’t put everything into 700-word articles, as you know.

Of course he could just be another standard neo-con covering his own ass before the hunt for scapegoats goes into overdrive.

His blog is also worth a look[5] – if only for this reportage of the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei[6].

In spite of the official denial by the Foreign Ministry and Iran’s UN ambassador over the weekend, American researcher Michael Ledeen, who was the first to report of Khamenei’s death, continued to insist in his blog that “(Khamenei’s) continued absence from all official events suggests that the source may be right.”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

[1] Their euphemism, not mine
[2] Their version of freedom, not mine
[3] Funny how they’re not quite so keen to export that same `freedom` to Palestine, huh?
[4] Sorry about all the `quotes` – I know it’s crappy – but terms like freedom and betterment and oppression are serious things, they should be used sparingly in their un-qualified form. [5] Though I hate to give him the inbound link. [6] Which I suspect might well be true – even if he’s not dead, but just out of commission. I reckon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a badass motherfucker to cross.