PA Ram wrote:

What–the–hey, well…this is quite unexpected! Thank you everyone. You really shouldn’t have by which I mean–YES–you ABSOLUTELY should have. Man–we sure are gettin’ old. Where does the time go?

Technically I guess it doesn’t really go anywhere and it’s all relative anyway. But my goal over the next several years is to train myself to live outside of TIME. Sure–it’s a bit lofty but it’s that or learn how to juggle chainsaws. My wife will NOT let me bring chainsaws into the house so…

Anyway–thanks all and of course–as always…GO RAMS!!!!!

You know, I was gonna say that I’d prefer to spend the evening with birthday girl Helena Bonham Carter over you, but your humility is just so awe-inspiring, that…

Never mind.

bnw wrote:

Good riddance. I never liked him.

I’m with you there.

To me, Berman is the poster child for headlines over substance, sizzle over steak. I can’t remember a single story about which he said anything that mattered.

I am shocked.

wv wrote:

He’s against NAFTA and those hideous trade agreements, right? I do
like that about him. Or am i wrong about that?

w
v

No, you’re right. You do like that about him.

Here is the amount of weight I give a report like this:

But at least the article doesn’t mention Goff’s bill for damages to a hotel in Miami Beach.

In contrast, here is a picture of Texas A&M when Johnny Manziel was drafted.

There.

That is my epic contribution to this epic thread.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754

Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

By AMY CHUA

Updated Jan. 8, 2011 12:01 a.m. ET

A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it’s like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I’ve done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

I’m using the term “Chinese mother” loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I’m also using the term “Western parents” loosely. Western parents come in all varieties.

All the same, even when Western parents think they’re being strict, they usually don’t come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments 30 minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It’s hours two and three that get tough.

When it comes to parenting, the Chinese seem to produce children who display academic excellence, musical mastery and professional success – or so the stereotype goes. WSJ’s Christina Tsuei speaks to two moms raised by Chinese immigrants who share what it was like growing up and how they hope to raise their children.

Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that “stressing academic success is not good for children” or that “parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun.” By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be “the best” students, that “academic achievement reflects successful parenting,” and that if children did not excel at school then there was “a problem” and parents “were not doing their job.” Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.

What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something—whether it’s math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more.

Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can’t. Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me “garbage” in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn’t damage my self-esteem or anything like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me. I didn’t actually think I was worthless or feel like a piece of garbage.

As an adult, I once did the same thing to Sophia, calling her garbage in English when she acted extremely disrespectfully toward me. When I mentioned that I had done this at a dinner party, I was immediately ostracized. One guest named Marcy got so upset she broke down in tears and had to leave early. My friend Susan, the host, tried to rehabilitate me with the remaining guests.

The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable—even legally actionable—to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, “Hey fatty—lose some weight.” By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of “health” and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. (I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her “beautiful and incredibly competent.” She later told me that made her feel like garbage.)

Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best. Chinese parents can say, “You’re lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you.” By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they’re not disappointed about how their kids turned out.

I’ve thought long and hard about how Chinese parents can get away with what they do. I think there are three big differences between the Chinese and Western parental mind-sets.

First, I’ve noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children’s self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children’s psyches. Chinese parents aren’t. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.

For example, if a child comes home with an A-minus on a test, a Western parent will most likely praise the child. The Chinese mother will gasp in horror and ask what went wrong. If the child comes home with a B on the test, some Western parents will still praise the child. Other Western parents will sit their child down and express disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their child “stupid,” “worthless” or “a disgrace.” Privately, the Western parents may worry that their child does not test well or have aptitude in the subject or that there is something wrong with the curriculum and possibly the whole school. If the child’s grades do not improve, they may eventually schedule a meeting with the school principal to challenge the way the subject is being taught or to call into question the teacher’s credentials.

If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.

Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn’t get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough. That’s why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (And when Chinese kids do excel, there is plenty of ego-inflating parental praise lavished in the privacy of the home.)

Second, Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it’s probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children. (And it’s true that Chinese mothers get in the trenches, putting in long grueling hours personally tutoring, training, interrogating and spying on their kids.) Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.

By contrast, I don’t think most Westerners have the same view of children being permanently indebted to their parents. My husband, Jed, actually has the opposite view. “Children don’t choose their parents,” he once said to me. “They don’t even choose to be born. It’s parents who foist life on their kids, so it’s the parents’ responsibility to provide for them. Kids don’t owe their parents anything. Their duty will be to their own kids.” This strikes me as a terrible deal for the Western parent.

Third, Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children’s own desires and preferences. That’s why Chinese daughters can’t have boyfriends in high school and why Chinese kids can’t go to sleepaway camp. It’s also why no Chinese kid would ever dare say to their mother, “I got a part in the school play! I’m Villager Number Six. I’ll have to stay after school for rehearsal every day from 3:00 to 7:00, and I’ll also need a ride on weekends.” God help any Chinese kid who tried that one.

Don’t get me wrong: It’s not that Chinese parents don’t care about their children. Just the opposite. They would give up anything for their children. It’s just an entirely different parenting model.

Here’s a story in favor of coercion, Chinese-style. Lulu was about 7, still playing two instruments, and working on a piano piece called “The Little White Donkey” by the French composer Jacques Ibert. The piece is really cute—you can just imagine a little donkey ambling along a country road with its master—but it’s also incredibly difficult for young players because the two hands have to keep schizophrenically different rhythms.

Lulu couldn’t do it. We worked on it nonstop for a week, drilling each of her hands separately, over and over. But whenever we tried putting the hands together, one always morphed into the other, and everything fell apart. Finally, the day before her lesson, Lulu announced in exasperation that she was giving up and stomped off.

“Get back to the piano now,” I ordered.

“You can’t make me.”

“Oh yes, I can.”

Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu’s dollhouse to the car and told her I’d donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn’t have “The Little White Donkey” perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, “I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?” I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn’t do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.

Jed took me aside. He told me to stop insulting Lulu—which I wasn’t even doing, I was just motivating her—and that he didn’t think threatening Lulu was helpful. Also, he said, maybe Lulu really just couldn’t do the technique—perhaps she didn’t have the coordination yet—had I considered that possibility?

“You just don’t believe in her,” I accused.

“That’s ridiculous,” Jed said scornfully. “Of course I do.”

“Sophia could play the piece when she was this age.”

“But Lulu and Sophia are different people,” Jed pointed out.

“Oh no, not this,” I said, rolling my eyes. “Everyone is special in their special own way,” I mimicked sarcastically. “Even losers are special in their own special way. Well don’t worry, you don’t have to lift a finger. I’m willing to put in as long as it takes, and I’m happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them pancakes and take them to Yankees games.”

I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn’t let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts.

Then, out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came together—her right and left hands each doing their own imperturbable thing—just like that.

Lulu realized it the same time I did. I held my breath. She tried it tentatively again. Then she played it more confidently and faster, and still the rhythm held. A moment later, she was beaming.

“Mommy, look—it’s easy!” After that, she wanted to play the piece over and over and wouldn’t leave the piano. That night, she came to sleep in my bed, and we snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up. When she performed “The Little White Donkey” at a recital a few weeks later, parents came up to me and said, “What a perfect piece for Lulu—it’s so spunky and so her.”

Even Jed gave me credit for that one. Western parents worry a lot about their children’s self-esteem. But as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child’s self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there’s nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn’t.

There are all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids’ true interests. For their part, many Chinese secretly believe that they care more about their children and are willing to sacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectly content to let their children turn out badly. I think it’s a misunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to do what’s best for their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that.

Western parents try to respect their children’s individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they’re capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.

—Amy Chua is a professor at Yale Law School and author of “Day of Empire” and “World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability.” This essay is excerpted from “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” by Amy Chua, to be published Tuesday by the Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Copyright © 2011 by Amy Chua.

Yes, I made students write an essay on THIS, too.

Thanks, W. That was a thoughtful post. There is a lot there, much of which I agree with, and some of which I disagree with. But your argument for voting for Hillary as a practicality has a lot of merit. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Donald Trump is a suitable candidate to occupy the White House. He is unpredictable, and therefore dangerous. Every moment he is in office, I will be figuratively holding my breath. There is no doubt in my mind he will make things worse for minorities, even if he is unable to go anywhere near as far as he claims he will. (I mean, the sheer impracticality of building a wall and/or deporting 11 million people is staggering. He can’t do it).

I also fear his SC appointments. The man is rash, and unprincipled. His unpredictability makes him a real loose cannon – not what one wishes for the most powerful position on the planet.

However, I can’t say I have any faith in Hillary Clinton, either. I assume her appointees will uphold Roe, but I don’t have any faith at all that they will overturn Citizens United. What has she ever done to make anyone think she would?

There is no question that organized wealth controls our politics, and that when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. What happens on Capitol Hill is different from what is promised on the campaign trail, and what is promised on the campaign trail is different from what happens on Capitol Hill because what the majority of voters want is something different from what the organized wealth in this country wants. So we get lip service, and when the oaths are taken, and the doors are closed, the government gets busy serving organized wealth. Everybody knows this. Everybody. And everybody has known it for a long time. And from time-to-time, a candidate comes along and promises to change that, but like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown, the government keeps up business as usual. Obama promised Hope and Change. Meanwhile, he took huge money from banks. So Obama bailed out the bankers, but not the homeowners. We got some incremental progress on a couple of things, but no change to the system.

So while I agree that Trump will be bad, I really have no reason to see Hillary as anything but Lucy. The entire Clinton fortune has been generated in the wake of Citizens United, and she has expertly used the system to landscape the democrat party to support her presidential bid. It’s what got her where she is. And, heck, she has scooped up more than $13 million from the healthcare industry alone, including over $2.8 million in speaking fees that went straight into her personal checking account. Millions of Americans believe that $2.8 million in personal money plus another $10 million in campaign money may just be at the root of her “practical” approach to healthcare. Hillary may be better than Trump, but she is not a reformer.

She talks about incremental progress. I am not sure incremental progress is acceptable anymore. I have waited 3 decades now for progress, and for 3 decades I have accepted the “lesser of two evils” argument (though I didn’t vote that way because it hasn’t mattered in California). But I believe we are running out of clock. And right now, I am weighing whether the risk of Trump against the value of destroying the democrat establishment. Is it better to risk 4 years of Trump on the gamble that he will be a one-term president, thus opening the door for a Warren run in 2020, or is it better to avoid risking possible Trump excesses by rewarding a corrupt democrat establishment, thus making a progressive run unlikely until 2024?

Because, you see, I don’t think we can afford to wait another minute on taking action on the environment. We need to make a serious move – not an incremental move – away from poisoning the biosphere. Life itself is at stake. And Hillary isn’t going to make a serious move. She’s already told us that repeatedly. We are killing the planet’s ability to support human civilization, and incrementalism is the same as doing nothing at this point. That is the dilemma.

Moreover, you misread the seriousness and scope of the movement Sanders happens to head up right now. Millions of other Americans are unhappy with the current system/establishment, and that is the story of this election. That is the story of Trump and Sanders. Yes, they have one thing in common: they both have called out the system for being a payola scheme, and neither has taken money from that system. That’s why they are getting the support they are. And you can dismiss it as childish – “lack of any analytical inclination,” “simplistic,” “juvenile,” “schoolyard politics” – but that attitude from Hillary and Hillary supporters does not warm us up to vote for her. Just so you know. And it is that smugness that informs us that the Democrat establishment just doesn’t get it. The writing is on the wall. This is the last gasp of Clintonism. The Clintons, the Rubins, Emmanuels, Wasserman Schultzes, are at the end of the road. The environmental pressures are building, and Sanders has just made it okay for the first time since the 70s to talk about certain issues. Half the party is for a self-described democratic socialist right now. Maybe more than half. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those votes cast in early February for Clinton would go to Sanders if those primaries were held now. And Hillary supporters are talking about half the party as if it is a child who needs to be removed from the room while the adults handle the serious business of the nation.

I am telling you that a vote for Sanders or Trump or Stein is not a immature, self-serving “statement.” It is a deliberate blow to the establishment which keeps breaking its promises to the American people. It will not stand. I do not accept the argument that what Sanders is calling for – a more equitable distribution of wealth, a national health care system, “free” college education – is juvenile, or unrealistic. Dozens of countries have those things. So we can, too. And the only thing stopping us is popular insistence upon those things. But 58% of Americans want single-payer health care, including 41% of Republicans. Not only is it feasible, we’re going to get it. Within 10 years is my bet. The pendulum that Reagan started swinging to the right has crested, and its rightward arc is within a whisker of being complete. This country has started looking to the left.

And if I am wrong about that, then may god help us because the shit is going to hit the fan.

Last note: it isn’t that corporations are evil, or that corporations are even to blame. Corporations are just a stack of legal documents, nothing more. But the playing field is tilted towards organized wealth, so the executives of corporations are just playing by the rules, and in fact rewriting the rules in their favor all the time. So the rules have to be changed. That is all.

zn wrote:

So, NFL ownership means build a stadium then sell before you die.

Then donate all the money so there is nothing left for the heirs who would sue over the estate. And I bet he won’t do that because nobody wants to give away their fortune while they are still alive.

wv wrote:

Zooey wrote:

It wouldn’t be a Jeff Fisher draft without the addition of a defensive player.

That’s the thing about Fisher. He’s a coach who will draft a defensive player. That’s what really sets him apart from other coaches in the league who get all their defensive players through free agency. It’s takes balls, man.

—————

He’s a man apart, alright. A rebel with balls. But is he a Holden Caulfield or a Cool Hand Luke?

w
v

I think he is more of a Dirty Harry.