My relationship with my parents was rocky, generally unsatisfactory, and quite often abusive. Where I would like to provide my children instruction on several levels, including as a direct example of successful behaviors, my parents displayed an entirely different notion from what I ultimately settled on for my family.

Growing up, I learned subtly from the cues around me that the role of a wife was to make the rules and hold sway over the household. My mother was often the policymaker, the matriarch by virtue of sending down certain edicts and expecting them to be followed. Rocking the boat in any way would make waves, which meant people were going to be hurt and punished. Speaking up was heartily discouraged.

The role of the husband, in turn, was to enable any abusive behaviors by rationalizing them and minimizing their impact. We were taught that this was loyalty. In retrospect, it was his own fear of rocking the boat and making waves.

That seemed like a terribly miserable way to spend the rest of my life with a mate, and I set out to go and do exactly the same thing. Not because that is what I wanted, but because in spite of the shallow surface accoutrements I thought a suitable mate ought to include, my meter for detecting what was normal was calibrated to detect someone “normal” in the same way what I had grown up around was “normal”.

At the heart of my divorce was the fact that while I started out much like my father did, trying to keep the peace, my job as a rent-to-own collector specifically required me to be more assertive. There were behaviors with which I had always felt uncomfortable, but my newfound voice meant that I could verbalize my feelings without being combative.

This did not go over well at all, and eventually ended the marriage where it began: with tantrums and immaturity, mixed with sex. That was my “starter marriage,” and while I believed that it would outlast one of us, I introduced significant change that ultimately turned out to be a deal-breaker. My primary purpose to her was as a financially-stable enabler, and when I ceased to enable, the financial stability was of secondary importance.

I have learned quite a bit that I am certain will help me to be a better husband to my beloved than I started out for my ex-wife. Where once I would have tripped over myself trying to stay out of the way and keep the peace, I now attempt to keep the peace while standing my ground and remaining firm. She finds it exasperating in a fight that I do not budge, but when there are storms outside of our home, she finds the trust comforting. It seems stubborn and steadfast have a similar appearance from the outside depending upon the context.

But why would I have gone to all of that trouble in the first place? Because that’s what I was raised to do. Specifically, that dynamic of keeping the peace in the face of irrational or even abusive behavior permeated every part of my childhood, and did not dissipate even after I left. My brother is still oozing it out through his pores, and I feel great sympathy when he feels forced to straddle a fence to avoid angering two different sides of a disagreement.

Backtracking in time, one can see the process beginning to brew upstream long before I arrived.

In my father’s case, he learned early on to keep the peace, to avoid stirring up emotions at all costs, even at risk of failing to show up for a confrontation that was absolutely necessary. He was taught relatively normal confrontational skills for use entirely outside the home, and to keep things mellow once he came in through the door. Why? Because his father had a medical condition that could cause his heart to fail as a result of stress. Instead of killing daddy, they learned to keep quiet.

He was found by my mother, who was looking for just that exact scenario, in which the man remains calm and quiet, because the woman neglects to exercise any self control whatsoever. How did she end up thinking that this was normal? She was raised by an abusive mother, and a father who allowed it. I never got to ask him why, as he died while I was still too young to grasp the finer points. I can only theorize.

I don’t buy the argument that marriages of that sort must end in divorce. A long-lasting marriage is not one with problems or perfect people. It is simple a relationship between two people with the same level of commitment and understanding of monogamy. Given the notion that both people believed whole-heartedly that divorce was not an option, he should have been perfectly capable of putting his foot down and demanding an end to the unacceptable behaviors, such as grandstanding, tantrum throwing, and disregard for personal boundaries. My first marriage failed not necessarily because I grew out of it, but specifically because her understanding of “lifelong” was actually a euphamism for “so long as I get my way.”

My mother, witnessing the relationship between her parents, got the notion that normal consisted of a woman running around abusing and disrespecting the individuals around her, and a man desparately following behind attempting to mop up the damage. This is why girls marry men like their archetypical father: because in order to replicate their parents’ marriage, they simply need to find an appropriate actor to fill the part.

Because my grandfather was limited in his range of emotional response, my grandmother got the bulk of the work raising children and running daily household operations. My father set out to find an appropriate matriarch to run his household.

Each tries to recreate what their parents had, without being able to rationally consider that the strange behaviors they witnessed were due to a heart condition, or my maternal grandmother being left an orphan at an early age.

Indeed, it is the very break in lifelong monogamy that will enable me to be happy with my mate, by providing a fundamental break with my childhood. My children are young, and for the majority of their lives will get to see me truly happy with someone who is kind to me, and to whom I am kind and loving. They will see both of us make mistakes, and see these mistakes forgiven, but never tolerated. They will be immersed in this sort of environment, and use it as their yardstick for finding their mates.

My daughter will look for a man who reminds her of me. That is a humbling thought, and a great encouragement to be on my best behavior. My son will look for a woman who reminds him of his stepmom, someone who is loving and kind, witty and beautiful. Any less and they will simply not measure up.

Somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind, not so deep perhaps, I secretly hope this post will be brought up decades from now as a defining moment of light shone upon an uncertain future. But I also realize that it’s funny to think that way.

My friend Charles has suggested that Moore’s Law will fail, not by slowing the pace of innovation, but by following it to its mathematical conclusion, and assuming that innovation will become infinitely rapid.

I’m not sure I buy the notion of infinitely fast innovation, but I had a wonderful insight, and then I saw the future, and then I saw my place in it, nearly all at once.

Pro-engineers, as I’ll call them, are problem solvers for problems no one has even discovered yet. Typically, someone builds a widget, then discovers that certain moving parts tend to interfere with one another, or wear prematurely. Pro-engineers preemptively see not only the problem, but are then able to set about finding a solution, before the first prototype is ever built.

I’m fond of telling friend that I get to see the future, but only about 10%. Just as soon as I’m told how funny and worthless that must be, I point out the notion of a dot-to-dot and how much 10% really is. A reasonably intelligent person can put 10% of the dots into a coherent picture at that rate.

I submit that before Moore’s Law fails, in whatever fashion, it will continue its onward march past the point of impossibility with the help of Pro-engineers, inventing past the horizon of the future that we can see, prefetching innovation as it were.

Today is a Hallmark holiday, and it frustrates me how readily the commercial taglines come to mind. I want to use words like “priceless” to hide the fact that I feel badly about not going and making a purchase to mark the occasion.

Of course, that has much to do with being ill for over a week, which did not help my classically poor attention to the calendar.

Thinking about being ill reminds me of the things you do here to make yourself the mother in this household. While I was sick, you took care of the children, something I would have had to figure out on my own a year ago. Had I been too dizzy to drive, I would have to choose between keeping a healthy Carissa home, or making the dangerous commute.

One of my greatest frustrations watching people live through abusive relationships is noting that their children are watching and taking note, deciding that living in a crazy or abusive household is normal. History shows that children pay careful attention to the roles their parents play and the examples they set, and later in life emulate them in their own homes. I take great pleasure in noting that my daughter will have your example to follow when she is building her life and nurturing children of her own, and in knowing that when my son selects a mate, he will measure all of his candidates against the standard that you’ve demonstrated. I sleep well at night in knowing that your fundamental influence will be one that I’ll not regret as they grow older.

It’s a hard job you’ve taken on, but one that so far no one has had the chops to see through. They love you plenty, but they’ll be as grateful later on as I am right now.

With all my heart,
Eric

Only three sorts of behavior from my children get a quick and painful response: outright defiance, intentionally hurting others, and being intentionally destructive.

Spilling paint on the carpet could be a minor infraction, so long as it wasn’t done with destructive intent. By the same token, something as minor as spilled milk could be met with a frightening response if its intent was to harm someone else, or purposefully make a mess.

Short of these three, there is very little that passes for a serious infraction in my home.

Let the punishment fit the crime? Sure, sounds like a great idea, but how about letting the punishment result directly from the crime? I’m a big fan, actually, of restitution and making things right. So when handwriting appears on the wall, there is no reason for screaming and shouting, no fussing and crying, and it’s certainly not necessary to punish the short people. They’ve already punished themselves enough, whether they’ve realized it yet or not.

Their greatest misery results directly from their own misdeeds. The more they color, the more there is to scrub from the walls, and all of the good things in life come to a screeching grinding halt until they correct their mistake. Then it’s promptly back to business as usual, running, climbing, and playing as children should.

I respond to them as a lock to find the right key for. Things happen sequentially around home, like a video game. If they don’t proceed successfully through the first thirty minutes of the day, what’s the use of skipping ahead until they’ve mastered the preliminaries?

Stop rescuing your children!

Stupidity is the inability to correctly parse negative consequences. People act stupidly these days because they are so thoroughly protected from danger and negative consequences. Stupid drivers on the freeway are those who seem unable to comprehend that their actions could cause damage and loss of life.

If you were to raise your child to love football, and carefully rescued him from any hard hits on the field, he would carelessly (and stupidly) wander onto a field full of NFL players without so much as a helmet. We would think him stupid, but that would be his sincere effort to play what he has come to understand as the game of football.

By the same token, we’re often tempted to come to the rescue of our children. I’d like to suggest that barring two exceptions, we refuse to rescue our children from their own consequences.

What are the exceptions? First, it would be appropriate to protect our children from outside players and forces that would seek to cause them evil or harm. Nothing is accomplished by allowing evil to befall an unsuspecting person of any age. Secondly, intervention at the last moment to prevent loss of life or limb would be appropriate.

I tend to use meals as punctuation. There is some debate, but I submit that there are far worse things that can happen than missing a meal, so the typical morning routine here includes getting dressed, socks and shoes, brushing teeth, getting backpack and coat ready, and finally breakfast after all’s said and done. Yesterday was the first day in awhile we’d tried the new routine without rescuing them with a banana or sandwich in the car. Yesterday, there was fussing and stalling, crying and tardiness. This morning, knowing that there would be no rescue, things went smoothly. We arrived at school dressed and fed, and confident in our self-reliance.

So I found Airwolf online for viewing, and have been piping it to my fancy new TV, watching 80’s reruns like I’ve never seen them before. And something interesting just came up. Ernest Borgnine has been one of my favorite actors since I was a youngster. He’s not super-bad like Clint Eastwood, not pretty like Vin Diesel. He’s approachable, the friendly kind of fellow that I could leave my kids with for an hour while I run to the store, and would expect they’d be munching on chocolate chip cookies when I returned.

The episode I’m watching is the sixth, in which his character, Dominic Santini, attempts a dangerous movie stunt. At issue is the question of his age, whether or not he’s getting to old to pull off the feat. With some frustration, he expresses that he’s not ready to retire yet.

That was something like 25 years ago. He’d be 92 today. So imagine my surprise when I looked him up on wikipedia, and he is in fact 92 today, and still working as an actor, including the occasional cameo appearance on Spongebob Squarepants as Mermaid Man. 25 years ago, there was a debate as to whether or not he was old enough to retire. Today, the debate is clearly and soundly settled. He’s still working. I’d rather enjoy meeting him, I suspect.

I’m trying my best to get Youtube and a few other online TV sites to play nicely with Ubuntu. It has been a minor headache. The thing that never seems to come up in any of the how-to’s is Hardware Acceleration.

Right-click in the flash window, and disable hardware acceleration.

What’s that for? It’s not as though Flash is doing high-volume hardware texturing and lighting. Bizarre.

My biggest political notion, in light of the Portland Police’s predilection for shooting civilians, has always been to gut the police budget, cutting it to something approaching 15% of its current levels, and reallocating all of the funds to education. It would ultimately turn the town into an educational mecca, the sort of place that people move to specifically to get their children the best possible education. Good things will come of filling an entire city with people whose first priority is education.

Tonight, I watched my fiancee call and attempt to file a non-emergency police report, and while waiting outside my job in the cold for them to show up, watched three cruisers slide calmly by, no lights or sirens, and completely ignore me.

The premise people will continue to throw around when it comes to eviscerating the police budget is that response times will go up. Many of the people suggesting that outcome will in fact be police officers and union members just trying to avoid layoffs. I can’t help but think that if layoffs were 85% of personnel at all levels, that the 15% remaining would be far more efficient, and response times might actually decrease. Underdogs are often far more successful in achieving goals. In any case, I wouldn’t watch three cruisers go by ignoring someone who needed them an hour ago.

When you buy a Geo, you suddenly begin to notice everyone else who drives a Geo. It’s a scientifically documented fact. When you’re waiting to become a parent, you might notice parenting advice and pregnant people, but when you actually become a parent, you’ll quickly focus on watching the parenting techniques of those around you, and if you’re clever enough, note the results.

I’m no exception. I’ve seen parents let their children raise themselves solo, providing no structure whatsoever, and ultimately coming to suffer a close association with rude, manipulative bullies of their own design.

I heard it said once or twice while living down South how important it is to teach your kids respect and smack them around a bit while they’re little so they don’t turn on you when they’re big enough to do real damage. The more conscientious parents season that by evolving it into a sense of the importance of teaching respect. Specifically, if they’re not taught respect while they’re small, they’ll come back and hurt you when they’re grown. Indeed, the very same advice is often given in the Southernmost parts of the country relevant to raising puppies into dogs.

Raising your children, or pets, by being mean and hateful toward them, but showing a constant lack of kindness or respect, can create offspring and animals that will eventually turn on you and strike back, bigger and stronger.

My parents have raised a child into a man watching their overwhelming fear, and often suffering as a result of the fears of the adults around him, observing how once-great people can drop and run away from their sanity without looking back. For my part, I think I’ve managed to escape the fear relatively unscathed, aside from a bitter taste in my mouth when I smell the fears of those around me.

But now, I’m within physical striking distance of the crazy people, the result of my decision to move close to my friends and family (not to be confused with relatives) when I divorced my ex-wife. Now, I’m close enough that they can actually go out of their way to spread fear and negativity over the people I love and care about most: my wife and children.

I’ve reminded my father once or twice that a man left with no legal recourse is left only with illegal recourse. I’ve learned that goons and lawyers in the same room will never intimidate one another because they speak different languages of dominance, and know that their language is the one that involves lawyers and money.

When an animal is backed into a corner, it will politely show claws and teeth before attacking to defend itself. Last week, I mailed a certified letter, a cease-and-desist letter demanding they cease all contact with my family.

Will they see the claws and teeth? Will they be clever enough to understand the danger of continuing to harass my family? Will they be prudent enough, at least, to sense the danger and leave us alone altogether?

I confess to being torn. I spent two and a half hours berating my father for not attempting to put his foot down to stop my mother’s unacceptable, childish, malevolent behavior, both now and in the past. It felt good to finally verbalize the terrible way I felt every time I’ve tried to keep things positive with them, and it felt good to finally accept the way things truly are, to embrace the reality that nothing good can come of someone so encumbered with their fears that they have to impose them on those around them. I’m torn between the hope that giving up and walking away will mean lasting peace, and the desire to engage, to exact some sort of retribution on behalf of myself and my family.

But what could that possibly accomplish, except to further spread their malice? Certainly, there is no way to undo any damage, only to make more. The frightening part is embodied by the words “will stop at nothing.” When someone will stop at nothing, and their path lies across a swath of damage in your family, then you have to choose to accept damage to your family, or moving unilaterally to put it to a stop. These are the circumstances under which nuclear weapons begin to seem just the slightest bit rational in their scope: when your adversary chooses not only to be an adversary, but also that they will stop at nothing to harm you.

Can they understand how much I just want to disengage with every rational part of me, and how much I just want to strike back for the hurt they’ve caused my family?