By John Rosemond
 
In her 1963 essay, “Total Effect and the Eighth Grade,” Flannery O’Connor’s purpose was to argue for requiring children to read the classics that defined Western civilization. In the course of making her case, she said something that every parent should be required to read and regurgitate on a regular basis: The whims and preferences of children should always, always be sublimated to the sense and judgment of their elders (paraphrase by Caitlin Flanagan, “The High Cost of Coddling,” Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2009, page W11).
“And what if the student finds this is not to his taste?” O’Connor asked, then answered, “Well, that is regrettable. Most regrettable. His taste should not be consulted; it is being formed.”
I have since read the entire essay — a spirited defense of classical education — and I recommend it to one and all, but I have never read a better rationale for classical parenting than is contained in the above quote. It is, in the classical sense of the term, precious. Thank you, Caitlin Flanagan, for bringing it to our attention.
Now, let’s pay attention. A British Conservative politician (sorry, but I’ve misplaced the specific reference) once said it was the first right of a people to be governed well. Substitute “child” for “people” and that about sums up my philosophy of child rearing, which is not my philosophy at all, but one I inherited from our much wiser foremothers and forefathers.
A child, lacking farsightedness, does not know how to govern himself. He does not know what is in his best interest. He is apt to prefer that which is bad for him and reject that which is good for him. Thus, he would rather drink a soda than a glass of water, eat a bowl of ice cream than a helping of broccoli, play video games than do chores, stay up than go to bed at a decent hour, disobey than obey and so on. His parents and teachers must provide the restraint and direction he cannot provide himself.
Proper restraint and proper direction are essential to turning the anti-social toddler into a disciple who will trust and look up to his parents, follow their lead and subscribe to their values. In the same order, that’s respect, obedience and loyalty. And “proper” in both cases means with lots of love.
In effect, Flannery O’Connor says that children, irrespective of IQ, do not think correctly. In this regard, all too many of today’s parents are trying to pull the horse with the cart. They think discipline is all about shaping proper behavior by manipulating reward and punishment. That’s not discipline; that’s behavior modification, and as I’ve said in previous columns, that’s how one trains a rat, not a human being. Discipline is the process by which a child is taught to think properly. A child who thinks properly will behave properly, but the converse is not true. A child who only learns what behaviors are appropriate to what situation may well become nothing more than a clever manipulator.
Therefore, a child is properly disciplined (or more accurately, discipled) by being taught right from wrong and the (preferably, classical) reasons why right is right and wrong is wrong. Discipline, then, is about values. Proper behavior is the measure, not the object. Nonetheless, until the child’s values are formed, he must be restrained from doing what he wants to do and directed to doing what he does not want to do.
And as O’Connor said, he need not, should not, be consulted about it.

Family psychologist John Rosemond answers parents' questions on his Web site at www.rosemond.com. © 2009, John K. Rosemond.
Read 0 Comments... >>

By Lisa Conti-Bacon

This is the first in a series of articles about family finance, with topics including consumer debt, when debt is a smart idea, strategies for getting out of debt, ideas for living within your means, saving for college, events and retirement, children's finances and money concerns for couples.

Consumer debt is the amount of money a person owes for previously purchased goods and services, not including debt secured by real estate.  Per the Federal Reserve's latest published statistics, as of the end of the second quarter of 2009, the total amount of consumer debt in the United States was $2,494 billion. About 36 percent of this is revolving credit, which is debt repeatedly available as periodic payments are made (like credit cards) and non-revolving, which includes car loans, student loans, loans for mobile homes and other debt that may be secured (that is associated with collateral that can be forfeited as a result of default) or unsecured.
The average outstanding credit card debt for households that have a credit card, as of the end of 2008, as reported by the April 2009 Nilson Report, was $10,679.  According to a May 2008 report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, before the recession began, 14.7 percent of U.S. families had debt exceeding 40 percent of their income. The average credit card-indebted young-adult household spent close to 24 percent of its income on debt payments, per Draut and Silva in “Generation Broke: The Growth of Debt Among Americans.”
What does this all mean? Well, quite literally, American families are drowning in red ink.  Even the back-to-basics movement across the county since the national economic downturn has not yet made an appreciable dent in our debt. That is despite the fact it has contributed to the decrease in consumer credit at an annual rate of 10.5 percent in July 2009 as consumers shy away from additional borrowing during the recession. And these amounts are totally outside of the mortgage crisis since they do not include real estate debt.
Anyone who knows about statistics knows that the averages don't tell the complete story.  There are a large number of households whose debt is much less than the average.  According to myFICO, the consumer division of Fair Isaac, which created the FICO score and provides analytic, software and data management products and services for businesses in the financial services industry, 40 percent of credit card holders carry a balance of less than $1,000 and 48 percent of consumers carry less than $5,000 in debt (other than mortgage loans).  Of course, that means that there are others with debt much greater than average.  According to myFICO, about 15 percent of credit cardholders have card balances of $10,000 or more and nearly 37 percent carry total non-mortgage debt of more than $10,000.
Regardless of whether a family needs to gain, regain or maintain control of its debt and spending, spending habits – the reality of the difference between wants and needs and the concept of delayed gratification – are worth considering.
It isn't about denying yourself the things you truly want and need; it's about not wasting money on things that are fleeting desires or purchases made on auto pilot so that you can get greater satisfaction from things you truly want.
Consider this: if you pay $200 for tickets to a play with a credit card that carries an average interest rate (as of June 2009, per the Federal Reserve) of 14.43 percent and make the average required minimum payment of 2 percent, it will take you 11 months to pay off your bill, and you will pay $14 in interest. Will you even remember the play in 11 months?  
Or if you carry the average credit card debt of $10,679 and completely quit using the card altogether, making only minimum monthly payments, it will take you 373 months to pay off the debt, and you will pay $25,812 in total principal plus interest. That is 31 years and one month to pay off a non-mortgage debt.
If you instead saved $20 per month for that same 31 years and invested it in a mutual fund earning 12 percent, you would have $80,216 at the end of that period.  And no sleepless nights worrying about making payments on time.  
So before you whip out that plastic or sign that loan application, consider if what you are giving up is worth what you are getting in the long run.

Lisa Conti-Bacon is a certified public accountant with Hancock Askew & Co., LLP and the mother of an 8-year-old daughter and an adult stepdaughter, and a grandmother of two. She can be reached at 912-234-8243 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Read 0 Comments... >>

By Star Henderson & Tara Crooks

Q: Are my e-mails and/or letters to my husband being read? Seriously, I’m not trying to sound paranoid, but someone from his ship told me they were. I’d just like to know, if this is common practice, why.


Dear Shannon:  
Two words come to mind. No doubt many have heard them: OP SEC (really Operational Security, or OPSEC).
Operational Security might be the reason behind why e-mails or letters to your husband are read, if they even are. The logistics behind reading every communication to and from port or ship is quite daunting, though. Most likely there is a policy that requires “spot-checking” what is going back and forth.
If you write letters about soccer practice and broken dishwashers, you may wonder why the Navy or any military unit would even care.

HERE’S WHY
Operational Security is the practice of safeguarding any information that is relevant to movement, unit strength and unit capabilities with technology, ammunition or skill sets. Especially at the outset of this war, a renewed campaign to educate service members and their families about what information to safeguard and how to do it was in full force. It is not that the practice of OPSEC is new, but the means by which we communicate is growing from snail-mail and secure phones to online family scrapbooks, to e-mail to VoIP. This puts a lot of information at risk of being viewed or gleaned by technologically smart foreign entities that may wish to harm the United States’ interests, service members and/or her citizens.
Your e-mail and letters may be mundane, but spot-checking everyone’s to determine possible vulnerabilities with regards to security measures and culpable content is just a commander exercising good sense. Additionally, a good commander knows also that there are a few other arenas that deserve a closer look, including online social networks, Web logs and message boards or discussion forums.
A letter is usually straightforward and personal. “Here is what we did today. We thought of you often. Love, the Family.” There’s no need to exchange questions about how many sailors are “on board” or which equipment is “down” for maintenance. In general, you are writing for private matters and the information being shared is not detrimental to the safety of the mission or crew.
Online discussions are another matter. Oftentimes individuals get involved in documenting a particular experience or debating policy. There is little to be done about who reads what and who spouts what, so these avenues tend toward making the military more vulnerable if not monitored well. Because of this, OPSEC procedures and policy are constantly being reviewed and improved. Many liken the oversight to censorship, but we feel it is more about keeping service members and military interests safe.

HERE’S WHAT
In fact, the most useful part of good OPSEC training is helping everyone (including family members) “get past” the idea that monitoring in some cases is oppression or censorship.
For example, the military does not tell you that you can’t express an opinion or document a homecoming; it just asks that you be careful how and how much. Too much or too specific info like your soldier’s remote location, your specific unit designation or any mission details could be just what someone is waiting to hear in order to do sabotage or something much nastier.
Even a small part of information published in a vulnerable source (i.e., a blog) can be harmful.
We must keep in mind that the enemy casts a wide net. A small part of information from one family, another from a soldier and still another from the mainstream media can comprise an accurate picture of future operations enough for planning a fatal attack.

HERE’S HOW
• Request a family class on Operational Security from a military subject-matter expert. Good training will help you understand why OPSEC is important, how the family plays a role, and what to do if you observe suspicious activity.
• Search each of your favorite military-related, online networks for their OPSEC guidelines. If they don’t have some, request that they post some. If they are unclear, ask for clarification.
• Report all OPSEC violations. It’s better to err on the side of caution than pave the way for the unspeakable.
• Don’t ask questions of your spouse that may lead him to be conflicted between choosing safety and securing your sanity. There are truly things that families do not have a “need to know.”
• Develop a family policy that addresses what can be shared with friends, neighbors and co-workers and how and what will be communicated between home and the deployed location.
• Confirm all gossip with a military or designated official. Use an official chain to distribute approved, sanitized messages.
Good question, Shannon. We know the idea of being “reviewed” is an uncomfortable one, but most likely it doesn’t happen often. And, if you practice the guidelines above, there should be nothing to worry about.

Have other questions? For more information or to submit your Field Problem, visit www.FieldProblems .com or e-mail FromTheField@ FieldProblems.com. Please include your first name, location, branch of service and years in/associated with the military. Questions may be edited for length and clarity. Field Problems™ reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any other form, the e-mails and letters that we receive. By sending us a letter or e-mail, you agree to these terms.

© 2006-2009, Crooks and Henderson. Field Problems TM is a self-syndicated column by authors and military spouses Tara Crooks and Starlett “Star” Henderson. Receive this and other Field Problems: SOLVED c/o Crooks and Henderson right in your inbox by signing up at www. FieldProblems.com. Field Problems™ is just one solution to the challenges encountered by military families in Crooks and Henderson's kitbag. Ask about workshops or Field Exercises™ customized to solve your or your organization's Field Problems™.
Read 0 Comments... >>

By Laura Gray

Your son finds that the cool swimming hole looks a lot less inviting from a rocky ledge 20 feet up. But he’s followed his friends and now realizes his mistake. He tries to talk them out of it – to no avail. They taunt and tease and threaten him if he tells. Frustrated, he climbs down and calls you. Just in time, you and the other parents arrive to stop a potential tragedy.
When the other boys discover their misjudgment – and what could have happened – they grudgingly acknowledge your son’s life-saving actions. Doing the right thing pays off for everyone.
In our me-centered culture, that’s a lesson kids may not hear every day. But it’s one they’ll learn by watching Disney’s “Race to Witch Mountain,” available this month on DVD. Enjoy the movie with your family and discuss its themes with our Talk Together points. Then play “Right Racers” to reinforce this valuable lesson.
In “Race to Witch Mountain,” cabbie Jack discovers two strange teens in his taxi. Sara and Seth offer him a wad of cash to drive them into the desert to what looks like an abandoned house. Uneasy about leaving them in the middle of nowhere, Jack follows the siblings inside. They explain they are from another planet, sent to Earth to retrieve a device that will save their home planet from destruction.
Soon, the kids are being pursued by two menaces: a robot from their own planet whose mission is to kill them and U.S. government agents who want them for experiments. With the device in hand, they set out to find their spaceship, which crashed near Witch Mountain. Jack enlists the help of a UFO scientist, Dr. Alex Friedman.
The teens locate their ship on a hidden military base and the group attempts to sneak in. But they are captured, and the military doctors prepare to experiment on the kids. Jack and Alex escape and rescue Sara and Seth, just as the killer robot arrives, wreaking havoc on the base. They board the spaceship with seconds to spare and take off. On their way home, the teens drop off Jack and Alex in Las Vegas and promise to return someday.

TALK TOGETHER

Jack has a hard time believing that Sara and Seth are aliens. How do they convince him they are telling the truth? What might have happened if Jack did not believe them?
At first, Jack thinks Dr. Alex Friedman is weird for believing that aliens are real. Why does he ask for her help with Sara and Seth? What can she offer that no one else can?
Telling the truth helped Sara and Seth save their planet. Tell about a time that you told the truth and it benefited your family or friends. How would the story have turned out if you had not told the truth? 

PLAY TOGETHER: RIGHT RACER 

You will need:
• Shoe box or shallow cardboard box
• Cardboard cut to fit inside box
• Yarn or string
• Pushpins
• Marble

Fit the cardboard inside the box to make a thick layer on the bottom. Use the pushpins to mark a path along the bottom of the box. Tie the yarn around the first pin and then follow the path, wrapping the yarn once or twice around each pin. Place a marble at the beginning of the path and move the box gently to maneuver the marble through the course. Time players as they move their marble along the path. The winner is the one who can get to the end first. Your kids will learn that taking the right path is always a winning choice!

For more film fun, go to www.Cinematters.com.

© 2009, Cinematters.

Read 0 Comments... >>