Parenting Done Right

I'm sure that by now you've either seen or heard about the video below, but I'm going to put here anywhere. The situation depicted in said video is this: A guy finds out that his daughter has posted a screed on her Facebook that is disrespectful to him and his wife, not to mention another woman who apparently cleans their house as some sort of an exchange. The guy mentions that this is not the first time that his daughter (who is 15) has been disrespectful toward them on Facebook. He also mentions that when it happened before, he told his daughter that if it happened again that it would be worse. I believe he told her something to the effect of he would "put a bullet" through her laptop. And he's not the kind of guy who doesn't follow through on what he says.

The guy (whose name is Tommy Jordan) is very calm and collected in his video. It's a bit long at just over eight minutes, but I think that it's awesome. This is a guy who gets it. This is a guy who wants his daughter to grow up to be a respectful and productive human being. This is a guy who loves his daughter. I like him. And I'm not the only one. His video has been viewed almost seven million times in the last 48 hours (and maybe not even that long). And what do you think that sort of instant Internet fame is going to do the guy? Nothing bad, to my surprise.

He posted on his Facebook account (that all the world seems to know about now) that he wouldn't be doing any interviews with the media because he doesn't see anything good coming out of it for him or for his family. He also says that the media tends to twist things around and that he doesn't need that. He has been willing to answer reporters questions via email and he has shared some of those responses on his Facebook page. (He mentioned that CBS called him yesterday and offered him his own show! What is wrong with you, CBS?! A show about...what? Real life? A good dad? CBS, is your programming so crappy that a show about a dad who disciplines his daughter is a novelty to you? We really are doomed. I like to joke about it, but only because it's true. But make no mistake about it. The end is near!) He posted the following:

Some of you think I made an acceptable parenting decision and others think I didn't. However, I can't think of any way myself or my daughter can respond to a media outlet that won't be twisted out of context. The Dallas news TV news already showed that in their brief 5 minute interview with the psychologist.

Additionally, there's absolutely NO way I'm going to send my child the message that it's OK to gain from something like this. It would send her a message that it's OK to profit at the expense of someone else's embarrassment or misfortune and that's now how I was raised, nor how she has been raised.

So I say thank you from all of us. If we have anything to say, we'll say it here on Facebook, and we'll say it publicly, but we won't say it to a microphone or a camera. There are too many other REAL issues out there that could use this attention you're giving us. My daughter isn't hurt, emotionally scarred, or otherwise damaged, but that kind of publicity has never seemed to be to have a positive effect on any child or family.

If you're a news outlet that wants to ask us a question, feel free to so via email. I'm sure by now my email address is easy enough to find. It might take me awhile to get to a response because I'd have to sort through the "Die you bastard" emails to find it, but we will respond if its something that we feel merits it. Otherwise, sorry... no interviews, no talk shows, no call-ins.

If we respond to anything, it will be on here, and it will be in a way that our words can't be misconstrued or edited for appeal to specific audience or shock value.

Now, I'm going to try to get to work for the day.
Best of luck to all of you out there... and PLEASE give my phone a break.

Now THAT is someone with their head screwed on straight. What's that? Oh, right. The video. The video is below. You can also check it out on YouTube by clicking here. This has clearly struck a nerve with a ton of people. And I haven't offered up a ton of commentary on this (mainly because I don't think that I can add to its awesomeness) because it stands for itself. He's a good dad and a good guy. We won't be seeing him making the media rounds and I find that not only shocking, but also extremely commendable. Let me know what you think. I think it's awesome.

Sphere: Related Content

Wave At The Bus

All parents do things that embarrass their children on occasion. In my household, that translated to daily. But there are several different levels of embarrassment. Most of the time, it's just parents being parents that get the biggest reactions out of their offspring. But other times, there's just pure, purposeful fun that the parent really enjoys and the kid claims to not enjoy, but probably secretly does. There's this guy in Utah that totally fits into the last category.

According to an article in the not surprisingly Mormon Deseret News, when Dale Price found out that his 15-year old son's school bus passed right by their house every morning, he decided that he'd stand outside and wave at the bus. Every day. Dressed in a different costume. Behold!

He takes his craft very seriously. And he's not just trying to embarrass his son. Well, kind of. It's his way of getting involved with his son. Dale said "...it was "a way of letting him know that we really care about him, but do something a little different." He described it as "a father's way" of saying I love you." And he showed his love for 170 straight school days. Here he is as Pocahontas:

Dale chronicled every single costume that he wore on his blog Wave At The Bus. Here he is as an ice fisherman:

Even when he was sick, he managed to have something out there. One day, he was out there with a cardboard cutout of Legolas from Lord of the Rings. When he had a fever one morning, Legolas stood in his place. Behold!

As far as his son Rain goes, he got used to it, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't embarrassing. "I'm not going to reward him for this; his reward is seeing my embarrassment." That's a smart kid with a good dad is what that is. Rain also noted "You don't want to see your dad dressing up in a wedding dress, waving at you on the bus." Good point. Behold!

Yeah, he's right. No one wants to see their dad like that. There wasn't any mention in the article as to WHERE Dale managed to get all of these costumes. He didn't repeat at all, so that makes for 170 different outfits. And he didn't appear to skimp at all! Seriously, who has an adult-sized Robin outfit lying around their house at the ready? This guy! Behold!

Or a Mario outfit?

And helmets! The guy seems to have an abundance of helmets! I'm not talking motorcycle helmets. I'm talking helmets from Star Wars...

A Transformer...

Nacho Libre...(OK, technically, that's not a helmet. But it is still a little odd that he had that outfit handy.)

Seriously, check out the guy's blog. It's as amusing as it is heartwarming. Kids need dads! Kids need dads that are involved. It doesn't have to be dressing up in a costume every day to wave at your kid's school bus, but it has to be something. Anything!

Sphere: Related Content

An Unhappy Meal

When, exactly, was the downfall of responsible parenting? When was it that parents simply gave up and blamed everyone and everything else for their unwillingness to do the hard stuff? I know that people have been like that for a while, but it seems that more recently it has been OK to vocally be that way. Take the Sacramento woman who is suing McDonald's for "deceptive advertising". Want to hear her example of their "deception"? They're putting toys in Happy Meals. I swear. And we're doomed.

According to the fine and thrifty folks over there at Wallet Pop, a Sacramento woman who isn't shy about being named in this insanity, a one Monet Parham says in her lawsuit that "Dangling a toy in front of a child is like putting a scantily clad woman in front of men." Good Lord. I can't believe she went there. There is so much to not like in that statement that it's hard to know where to begin, but I'll give it a good go here. I'm going to start with "Are you on glue?" (I tried to find a picture of this individual and the only one I could locate offhand was what appears to be what she uses as her profile picture on Facebook. I'm sure you won't be surprised at all. Behold!)

Um, yeah. Ok, then. Where was I? Oh, yeah. She must be, as in the article, she goes on to exemplify her incompetence as a person in charge of raising children when she says "My children really want the toys that are in those meals. I'm concerned about the health of my children frankly...I don't think it's OK to entice children." Soooo...because your children really want something, you have to get it for them? And of course, in this scenario, you're being forced to eat at McDonald's, otherwise why else would you be in such a situation where the health of your children is jeopardized because you have to buy them an unhealthy meal with a toy because you were forced to take them there to eat. Oh, wait. Those are all choices that someone with half a spine could actually make. Never mind. Carry on.

The article also includes the revelation that "...the meals often get cold while her children -- ages 6 and 2 -- play with the toys instead of eating." So, now McDonald's is responsible for her not being able to keep the toys from her children until they're done eating to play with them? Wow. I had no idea that McDonald's was such a powerful parenting entity. I might have actually decided to have children if I knew that McDonald's could have raised them for me!

What is wrong with this person? Does she honestly believe this nonsense that she is spouting for the sake of her lawsuit? Why can't she tell these kids no? Are they giants? Particularly menacing giants? Why does she have to take them to McDonald's? Why does the 2-year old even understand the concept of a Happy Meal? Why is she feeding McDonald's to a 2-year old? So many questions. So few answers. Actually, I take that back. There is one answer. She's a moron who can't stand up to a freaking two-year old.

It's unclear to me in what context the woman was saying the things that I've quoted. Oh, how I wish that the person she was talking to could have asked the follow up questions that I just asked. Not because there would have been any sort of rational explanation, but because it would have been ten times more amusing to hear her explain why she's such an irresponsible parent who is completely incapable of telling her children no.

The children aren't buying these meals. She is. She is taking absolutely no responsibility for her part in this and it angers me. If it's all about the toy, shouldn't she be suing other fast food franchises that include toys in their meals for children? (She probably isn't suing them because she doesn't take her children there, thus they don't want their toys. Ah-HA! Problem solved.) For that matter, she better include Cracker Jack in her lawsuit. After all, they've been including "toys" with their unhealthy product since 1896! (I realize that it's a stretch to call the things that are in Cracker Jacks "toys". I was trying to make a point!) I hope that someone is around to interview her after she loses. I'd like to hear what her strategy for keeping Happy Meal toys out of the hands of her own children is going to be then.

Sphere: Related Content

Things NOT To Do When You're 70

Here's a disturbing headline for you: Indian Woman Gives Birth at Age 70. And with each and every disturbing headline comes a ridiculous sub-title! (Yours to keep as your free gift!) The subtitle reads: When is too old to have a baby? Hmmm. I'd guess that there are probably lots of answers to this question. And if that's the case, I'm going to say that at least one of the answers is seventy!! Actually, I'd like to amend that answer just a bit. I'm going to go with "seventy....duh!" Are you kidding me?!

I am not. It would seem that, according to the folks across the pond at The Telegraph, a one Rajo Devi, "...who married 50 years ago, gave birth to a baby girl on November 28, and is now thought to be the world's oldest new mother." Well, I should hope so! I'd hate to think that there is someone older than seventy out there who is currently in the middle of a human gestation period. Seventy? What is wrong with you? All of the physical mechanics of such an ordeal aside, why would any woman at seventy years old want to not just raise a child, but let it grow inside of her for nine months before expelling it out her uterus? Why? (I realize that I have permanently set up camp in the section reserved for folks who have no idea why anyone would want to do the whole childbirth thing ever. But that doesn't mean I'm not capable of recognizing reasons other than my thinking the whole situation is untoward. I can be appalled and neutral.)

Were you wondering how a 70-year old woman gets pregnant? (Ew!!) Well, it wasn't the good old fashioned way, unless you consider fertility treatments to be "the good old fashioned way". According to a one Dr. Anurag Bishnoi (Translation: Dr. Something Unpronounceable), "Rajo Devi and (her husband) Bala Ram approached the centre for treatment and the embryo transfer was done on April 19." "Embryo transfer?" Was it on a bus? A subway? Why was it transferring? This is where things started to not make complete sense. In the seniscal sort, of course. Having a child at age 70 doesn't make any sense, but there are other things as well that I question (shocking, I know).

The article states that, "It was not clear whose egg and sperm were used in the successful treatment." Wait! Hold on there, cowboy! Back up that rickshaw for a moment. It wasn't her egg and it wasn't his sperm? Well, that would make sense, considering eggs, just like those you buy in the grocery store, do have an expiration date at some point way before 70. Sperm has an expiration date as well, but the shelf life of sperm is longer than that of the egg and also you cannot buy sperm in the grocery store, thank God. But that would mean that she was, quite literally, just a host. Which leads to the question "WTF?"

See, if it is someone else's sperm and someone else's egg, you're getting a kid that is totally different than the one you and your spouse would have produced. In that case, there is absolutely NO need for you to tote that kid around inside of you for nine months. None. The hostess had said, "We longed for a child all these years and now we are very happy to have one in the twilight years of our life." Twilight Zone, perhaps. Did they not know of other options that are available for having a child without physically giving birth to what amounts to someone else's child? I mean, sure, it's her oven, but it's totally someone else's bun.

Actually, these folks seem to be confused on the whole concept altogether. This is an avenue that they pursued before deciding that childbirth at 70 was the way to go: "Devi's husband, aged 72, had also wed his wife's sister after 10 years of his first marriage did not result in children. His second wife also failed to become pregnant." So.....what now? He...he married his sister-in-law? While he was still married to his barren wife? I'm failing to see how that is going to make the situation better. It certainly can't do much for one's morale when your husband, whom you are presumedly still married to, is off attempting to impregnate your sister who (I'm assuming) is a willing participant is what seems to be the Indian version of the Jerry Springer Show. All we need now is a fistfight and a couple of chairs thrown across a stage and we're there!

"The couple said they were facing social stigma for being childless for the last 55 years." Were facing? As in "going to face"? Or "had been facing" up until this time? Because it's worded as if the whole "social stigma" hadn't kicked in yet, but they could see it coming. I can't imagine that would be the case unless there's, perhaps, a 56 year cut off for childless couples before they are subjected to stigmas socially? I don't know. Personally, I'm kind of thinking the guy just wanted to sleep with his sister-in-law.

Look, seventy is pretty old to be trying to do many physical activities. And while I don't advocate just sitting around and getting old, most physical activities that you can do when you are 70 do not put another human's well-being smack dab in the middle of your uterus. Unless there has been a drastic change in how children grow up and are raised, I'm pretty sure that they still need someone to raise them! Those are the kind of things that I think of. They are not the kind of things that these people think of, as evidenced by Ram's statement that he ".....wasn't worrying over who would look after the child if they died. The upbringing of the child is not a problem. We have a joint family as is common in rural Haryana." Well, that would explain all of the fornicating with the sister-in-law.

But he's missing the point. Sure, the 'joint family' can raise the child, it takes a village, blah, blah, blah. The fact is that it is difficult for almost everyone when a parent dies and it is almost always more difficult for a child when a parent dies. Just because you're being raised by your village doesn't mean that you are not going to wish that your parent had not died. And that doesn't happen just when you're a kid; it happens when you're an adult as well. (Look, I had 37 years with my Dad and it wasn't nearly enough. If I had only had, say, 7 years with my Dad, I think I would have felt cheated.) And the average life expectancy of people living in India is around 62.8 years, a figure which both of these folks have already exceeded by 8-10 years, so don't expect them to be around when the kid turns 5.

This is just selfish. That's all it is. People that have children or father children when there is no way that they are going to live to the point where the child is well into adulthood are just selfish. What is even the point of bringing a child into the world when you're not going to be around to raise it yourself? (And I think that about people who are young enough to be bearing children. If you're not going to raise it and take care of it and support it, why in the world did you have it?)

But there's something odd going on here. And not just because the chick is 70 and dude is 72. The picture doesn't look right. What's the deal with where the kid's hand is supposed to be? It's not there! And the guy has this look on his face like he's getting away with something.

Actually, a bunch of folks in this photo look like they're getting away with something. And what is with the woman's hand down there by the baby. That's not a hand! I'm not buying it. I don't know what's up with all of this, but if it comes out later on that they faked the whole thing up, you read it here first.

You know, there are many differences between the people I know who have children and this selfish couple in India who are far too concerned with their own "social stigma". It's not like I didn't know that my buddy is a good mom. But it's when I get to see her in action as the mother of her grown children (18 & 20? I think. Close enough.) that my level of respect for her in general just skyrockets. The time that she takes to think about them and to talk to them, the amount of effort that she puts into maintaining excellent relationships with them, and just seeing how obvious it is that she loves them unconditionally with a love that comes from the very core of her soul. It's absolutely incredible. That child-bearing, multiple-wife keeping, senior citizen couple over there in India could really stand to have a little sit down chat with my friend. I guarantee that they'd learn something of immeasurable value.

Sphere: Related Content