The Demise of Healthy Articulation

In the news today, I read an article about a father's letter to his children reprimanding their life choices/paths. It follows:

Disappointing, although not surprising, to see that his children have responded by "biting back" rather than seizing the moment to shine.  However, I do not know what their personal circumstances are, whether there is a total disrespect for their parents, or whether their parents are overly judgmental and harsh on their children, etc. My response is regardless of their circumstances as my response is, of course, personally subjective. I applaud Mr. Crews', simply for his very articulate reprimand because it could apply to so many people today. It is very apparent, to me, in this letter that Mr. Crews' loves his children and holds them in very high regard, maybe more so than they hold themselves; otherwise, a parent doesn't take this sort of time, initiative, and "gamble" with the relationship to make these expressions of higher expectations. It seems to me that there are more and more parents who fail to communicate to their children for fear of upsetting their child (I know one of these parents very personally). They are more worried about being friends with their children than parenting and guiding them. But I too am guilty of carefully tip-toeing through my words so as to express them without offending my child, only to wonder later about whether or not it was effectively received. What has happened to the days when a parent was comfortable enough in their relationship with their child to express their frustration in conjunction with the corresponding emotion(s), and maybe even administer the spanking or punishment as deemed appropriate. 

In my work as a legal assistant in a law firm which specializes in criminal law, I see, far too often, parents who have not spent the time and effort guiding, educating, admonishing, and communicating high expectation for their children. It's not until their child is in trouble with the law and sitting in jail that they make their "parental" presence known. And then I find myself completely stunned by a parent who behaves in that way that you should not want your child to behave. These arrogant parents boast intimidating and violent threats which are then mimicked by their children, and then they all are completely puzzled as to why all of the negative energy is focused on them.

So many "crybabies" embracing their self-proclaimed victimness rather than responding to their oppositions, transgressors, and criticisms with a kindness, open-mindedness, honesty, and general sweetness that transcends the seemingly "natural" response of aggression.  

Are we raising a world of tyrannical heirs waiving victim cards? It can be attractive to a young person who finds him/herself reprimanded by family or parents, to search out sympathizing enablors who, without much question or factual knowledge, validate via empathy. Can this be a good thing? Why not the more gallant but more difficult to muster response which also echos it's support group? It's unfortunate that we may never have the entire world on our side, but which pasture of patrons do you prefer?

This brings to mind a Facebook friend who expressed a desire to say what was truly on her mind rather than biting her tongue over and over again. Have you ever "turned the other cheek" only to be haunted later by a feeling that you were not "true to yourself"? Wondering maybe, if you had spouted the initial negatively articulated admonishment you longed to get off your chest, that you would feel more vindicated? And then, in the alternative, have you ever found yourself having spouted spite only to regret this too in shame? Rather to sit a spell, gather your emotions, concerns, and effective words so as to express yourself in a more responsible, respectable, and receptive manner. 

Often times the best and more rewarded response is the hardest one to muster.  

As Strother Martin famously drawls in Cool Hand Luke, "What we got here is failure to communicate."

Thanksgiving 2012

I was outside taking pictures of my darling daughter when Corey arrived. We paused our photo shoot to welcome him. Most of us were already dressed and just about to head for my sister's home. As we had not heard a peep from Jr yet, I suggested to Corey that he give the door a rap to wake him and then they could come together. He agreed.

Aaron is gone with Candice today. Every year, they attend a religious rally. This year it's in Austin and they traveled caravan-style with a rather large group from their church. It's good for them and so, it doesn't bother me that I do not get to spend this holiday with them. Their needs before my own.

We were at my sister's for at least an hour when Corey showed up - alone. Jr refused to come out of the room. Later, he informs us that it was because Paige had insisted he stay there in his room. Who does that? What is wrong with that girl? I don't get her. But during his rant, he acknowledged his frustration with her double-standard behavior. (She has gone to be with her family for a wedding and the holidays - and isn't even certain that she wants to return to him.) However, I do acknowledge that Jr is just as responsible for this because he is allowing her to have that kind of control over him. It's an unnecessary desperation in him to make a family. He's such a sucker for a family, but that's not really a bad thing - unless you're with a ridiculously irrational girl.

It was a nice visit with family, albeit rushed. The food was the usual creative stuff, so Wolfie and Drew didn't eat much (nor did I). From there we went to Roy's parents' home to visit and eat. And again, the food was nothing the kids nor I would dig-in to (and we witnessed a fly commit suicide in the rice which discouraged any appetite we may have had).  Consequently, when we finally arrived home, we were all starving; I popped some pizzas in the oven. Pizza for Thanksgiving. I'll have to plan this out differently next year. 

It puts me on Cloud 9

My son, Aaron, sent me a text saying, "Call me."  And so, I did.

"What's up?", I ask.

"I'm upset" he replies.

His disc drive isn't recognizing any discs right now.  For an inexpensive computer, this wouldn't be a surprise to me - but, a little over a year ago, he worked his tail off, saved, researched computer options, even made telephone calls to retailers inquiring about their product and, finally, purchased this one for around 2-2,500 dollars, so his distress is well warranted.

I immediately started my internet search regarding the problem and found a Microsoft support site with a possible fix, and emailed it to him.  Trying to pacify him, I offered this support and suggested he begin by doing his own investigating on the net for simple fixes.  He believes he purchased extra warranty, and plans to look for that paperwork - maybe give them a call.  I assured him it will get fixed and I will help all I can, as this computer is too pricey to just let it go at this point.  He said, "okay" and got off the phone.  I hope I gave him some small peace of mind, but I know, firsthand, how extremely stressful this is for him.  However, I also know the computer isn't "trashed", it will be inconvenient and frustrating to get it fixed (one way or the other) but it will still be saved.

And I'm smiling - because my son called me for support when he was upset.  I love when they come to me.

10-2012 Kids Photos

Dragged my lovely children out for this year's pictures. I had to force Drew into the grass to take this shot but we are both very pleased with the result. (It's obvious how the camera loves her too.)

And my darling, Wolfie, is growing up so fast that I can hardly stand it. I am thankful for his sweet, loving spirit and that he still lets my hug and kiss on him.

I have such a love for tile - this is my favorite spot and angle for pictures.

You can't even tell how eager they were during this shoot to get finished and get home again.

Changes

Because of his work schedule, on his days off Roy usually doesn't sleep most nights. He tends to get up about two in the morning and play on the computer until 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. then returns to bed to finally sleep again.  This morning was the same, except this time on the way to bed he had to maneuver past boxes which Paige had moved into the hallway.  

Roy slid into bed next to me and asked what was going on with Jr and Paige - I knew nothing.  He informed me of the boxes in the hallway and suggested, "maybe they're cleaning?" Unusual as that may be, it could happen.

A couple of hours later, I finally start moving around the house. I shower and start cooking breakfast for Drew, who falls back to sleep before I can finish getting it ready.  

Standing in the kitchen, Jr enters the room to discuss cashing his income tax check, paying on his truck, college, and an unexpected deposit into his checking account.  I ask him about the boxes and he responds that Paige is leaving for Vegas for her brother's wedding.  I was aware of the impending marriage but never new the exact date.  He elaborates that he is not invited to the wedding, and his tone is indication that his feelings are, understandably, hurt by this.  He goes on to say that Paige is moving all of her belongings from our home to a friend's home with the idea that she may not return to Jr.  Again, he is understandably agitated. I feel badly for him but don't know what to say in response; there really is nothing that can make this better right now. I change the subject back to school and let him know that I will help all I can with it.

A Suburban pulls up to our driveway and waits.  Shortly thereafter, Paige and her friends begin loading the Suburban with her belongings.  Afterward, she hugs Jr and manages a sniffle, then leaves.

*

On another note, I began texting Corey here and there in an effort to move things forward between us.  I think it's working.  My hope, though, is that he has come to understand what is, and is not, acceptable in our home and with me.  I hope there will be no further issue with lies and fights. Consequently, I have invited him home for Thanksgiving and to attend dinner on that day with us at my sister's home.  He has accepted and I am looking forward to it.

*

The end of the year is coming, and I am so looking forward to the beginning of 2013.  I have extremely high expectation for the house this year as we are paying off the Jeep in March and with the additional savings, we will be catching up on other bills and remodeling the casa! <squealing with excitement>

Presidential Election FYI

Last night, as the presidential election was coming to a close, I sat down to discuss some of it with my kids (who I homeschool).  We talked about the two frontrunners and touched on popular votes and electoral votes.  They seemed completely lost, inspiring the following analogy.  

Instead of referring to "electoral votes" (which is where I would completely "lose" them), I changed it up to say, consider, or think of "electoral votes" as a "bucket of candy".  And each state has a bucket of candy with a different amount of candy inside.  For instance, Texas has a bucket with 38 pieces of candy in their bucket (or 38 electoral votes), and Ohio has 18 pieces of candy in their bucket (or 18 electoral votes), New York has 29 pieces of candy in their bucket (or 29 electoral votes), but Wyoming only has 3 pieces of candy in their bucket (or 3 electoral votes), and so on and so on. 

(We use this candy analogy for our division lessons as well, and personalize it by using family names, because they can get lost in the numbers but should we be dividing candy - you can bet your bottom dollar they understanding dividing that correctly!)

During election, we (the people of the United States of America), go to a voting booth and cast our vote (also referred to as a ballot).  This can be done either on paper or electronically (these days, typically electronically).  When everyone is done voting, the votes are tallied up (or counted).  These votes are also referred to as "popular votes". 

Now, back to the "candy in the bucket".

Who ever has the most "popular votes" in a state wins the that states "bucket of candy" (or electoral votes).  There are only two states whose "candy" can be split up between the candidates: Nebraska, who has 5 pieces of candy in the bucket (or 5 electoral votes), and Maine, who has 4 pieces of candy in the bucket (or 4 electoral votes).

In the end, they guy with the most candy - wins!

*

How many total electoral votes?

The number of electoral votes is 538, based on the total voting membership of the United States Congress:  435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 3 from the District of Columbia.

How is the number of electoral votes for each state determined?

The number of electoral votes for each state is equal to the number of Senators plus the number of the House of Representatives. The number of senators is fixed at two but the number of Representatives for each state varies with the population of the state but is always at least one. The District of Columbia (also known as Washington D.C.) gets the same amount of electoral votes as the state with the least amount of electoral votes (this is currently 3).

    2 - Number of Senators for the state

+ X - Number of Representatives for the state (varies with population)

    Y - Total Number of Electoral Votes ("candy in the bucket") for the state

The number of representatives that a state has is determined by the population. After the official census is completed every ten years, Congress adjusts the number of Representatives based on the new population figures. Consequently, the number of electoral votes (or "candy in the bucket") can increase or decrease.

How does the census effect the electoral votes?

A census is a process of collecting data (or information) pertaining to each person in the United States.  This information is used to determine, among other things, funding for a state, and how many Representatives each state is allowed.  This is also referred to as “Apportionment”. Apportionment is the process of dividing the 435 memberships (also called "seats") in the House of Representatives among the 50 states.  This division (or Apportionment) is based on the population numbers collected during the census.  A new census is taken every 10 years.

The total number of Representatives for each state is currently fixed at 435 (this means it must stay at 435 - each state can increase or decrease but the total number for the entire U.S. must stay at 435).  Therefore, if one state increases in population enough to merit (or earn) another representative, then some other state must also lose a representative to keep the number at 435.  In the past, the total number of Representatives has increased, but the last time that happened was in 1913.

The last U.S. Census was taken in 2010, and based on that information, some of the numbers of electoral votes ("candy") was increased and decreased for some states.  

Here's the updated totals for each state for 2012:

Alabama - 9

Alaska - 3

Arizona - 11

Arkansas - 6

California - 55

Colorado - 9 (swing state)

Connecticut - 7

Delaware - 3

Florida - 29 (swing state)

Georgia - 16

Hawaii - 4

Idaho - 4

Illinois - 20

Indiana - 11 (swing state)

Iowa - 6 (swing state)

Kansas - 6

Kentucky - 8

Louisiana - 8

Maine - 4

Maryland - 10

Massachusetts - 11

Michigan - 16

Minnesota - 10

Mississippi - 6

Missouri - 10

Montana - 3

Nebraska - 5

Nevada - 6 (swing state)

New Hampshire - 4 (swing state)

New Jersey - 14

New Mexico - 5 (swing state)

New York - 29

North Carolina - 15 (swing state)

North Dakota - 3

Ohio - 18 (swing state)

Oklahoma - 7

Oregon - 7

Pennsylvania - 20

Rhode Island - 4

South Carolina - 9

South Dakota - 3

Tennessee - 11

Texas - 38

Utah - 6

Vermont - 3

Virginia - 13 (swing state)

Washington - 12

West Virginia - 5

Wisconsin - 10

Wyoming - 3

District of Columbia - 3

Some critics of the electoral voting system argue that it is undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President.  Supporters of the electoral voting system argue that it is an important, distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and that it protects the rights of smaller states.

What is a swing state?

 A swing states is a state in which no single candidate or party has overwhelming support in securing that state's electoral votes.  (For instance, certain states almost always lean one direction or another (Republican or Democrat). Swing states show a tendency to go either way and are targets for both of Republican and Democratic political parties during a presidential election because winning these states help secure winning the election.

Which U.S. states get to vote in the presidential election?

All 50 U.S. states are allowed to participate the voting process including the District of Columbia (also known as Washington D.C.) which is not considered a U.S. state.  (The "D.C." in "Washington D.C." stands for District of Columbia.)

How many electoral votes does Washington DC get?

Washington DC gets 3 electoral votes as if it were a state, but will never get more than the least populous state.

Explanation excerpt via Wikipedia:

Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in each of the 50 U.S. States.  The United States Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the United States Congress. As the U.S. capital, the District of Columbia is a special federal district, not a state, and therefore does not have voting representation in the Congress. The Constitution grants the Congress  exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever."

The District's lack of voting representation in Congress has been an issue since the capital's foundation. Numerous proposals have been introduced to change this situation including legislation and constitutional amendments, returning the District to the state of Maryland, and making the District into a new state. All proposals have been met with political or constitutional challenges and there has been no change in the District's representation in the Congress.

Why Isn't Washington DC a State?

Basically, Washington D. C. (or District of Columbia) is not a state because it is actually a Federal District. Without getting into too much detail, and in effort to avoid being too vague as well, the founders of the country did not want the federal government to be run by state laws nor to mingle.  State laws can differ from federal laws creating conflict.  Historically, states had more rights and power than the federal government, especially in the early days of the republic.  But in 1783, there was an attack on Congress in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania authorities would not help in stopping the attack and the congressmen had to flee across the Delaware to neighboring New Jersey. Consequently, the federal government decided that the new capital would need to be in a "federal town" over which the federal government would have control so a similar scene would never play out again.

2012 Presidential Election map via Politico

*

On a personal note, I'm not one to debate sensitive topics much, such as abortion, politics, religion, etc. They are important to me and I have my take on each, but I discuss my stance with my mother, my husband, and on occasion, my children.  Just as I do not affiliate myself with any one organized religion, I do not attach to a particular political party (and I rarely vote straight Republic or straight Democrat - it all just depends...). I enjoyed this election process but only because the older I get, the more interested I am.  I, frankly, did not care for either of our choices this year - but... insert The Serenity Prayer here.  

I would like to address here (since I did create this is my forum to do so), all the drama I've seen from my Facebook "friends".  Because of my political position and despite my political position - I am not an Obama hater, nor do I believe him to be the "anti-Christ", nor do I feel a desire to leave the country, nor do I feel a need for Texas to succeed now.  It is curious to me that so many people seem to grab tidbits (which are not in any way,  completely or even partially, verified) in order to validate their position (which also seems to stem from a hate that originates on a personal level first).  It is increasingly difficult to siphon through these haters to the legitimate verifiable issues.  I do know that (without revealing who I voted for, because it's nobody damn business) that it only takes one racial slur to register (for me) who is racist and, consequently, invalidate their entire political argument.