tasmlab

Congratulations on getting your 21 month old potty trained and esp. through the night. That is very young! (I know this isn't the main point)

Personally, I find it challenging to just convince progressives to be good progressives and conservatives to be good conservatives. Or just to get them talking about something other than the president. Or just to get people to recognize that their cops and parks and libraries come from their town governments. Like just getting past "You know, if I were a good progressive, I might be critical with how corporatey - and, really, fascistic - the affordable healthcare act is." Or "If I were a progressive, I'd think I'd prefer a government that fights fewer wars." Even these little dingbats can draw ire. So, in short, your situation is hopeless. You might need a new hobby!

I'm curious about prices and living standards. My uneducated impression is that you live in a very nice 2x2 box, pay $20 for a thimble of tea, and have fantastic urban infrastructure that is sparklingly clean and well kept up. And it is bonkers crowded. How is it really?

From what I've heard, he gives a more simple reason for using the argument from morality and that's that the establishment also uses it and people respond to it. People beleive the 'war is just' or that welfare is 'caring for the poor because it is virtuous" and rarely sit and ponder the effects. My personal opinion is that we need inductive arguements i.e., it's moral, it's effectual, it's corrupted (beyond intent of morality or outcome) and it's personal. That way if one arguement is rejected there are more to support the point.

Hi STer, I didn't understand your premise at first, but I think you make a good case that the arguement for liberty is pretty hard to communicate solely on personal effect. Sort of like in "Madagascar" where the animals don't really understand what's going to happen without their zookeepers (sorry to reference children movie). I guess that's why Stef urges everyone to start with morality. Then injustice, such as the govt's mass murder of innocents, it's imprisonment, the rampant fascism, wealth-inequality as-product-of-state, etc. Frankly, I had to read a dozen books and a thousand articles and then weeks of podcast over 15-20 years to get here, so I shouldn't be surprised nor dissapointed that I can't point to a personal bugaboo that I think would change everybody's mind.

I wholeheartedly agree! I think the public would think I was batshit to not require doctors to be approved through the state and require 10 years of education. How long would it take to convince people that they should probably spend four hours a year with a nutritionist instead of seeing a guy who makes a $1,000,000 a year for five minutes? Or that anybody should be able to approve thier own pharma? Yea, people would think I was nuts. But just think of the low cost options people would have if the insurers, pharma and the doctors didn't fascistically hold on to this thing. I didn't know the point of the thread was to find oppression releif that would appeal to the public. That's quite a fish to fry!

Some great lists here! FAMILIES WHERE ONLY ONE PARENT WORKS: A lot of the families in my neighborhood and most of my friends have to have both parents working to support their families*. I would bet if the 20-40% we ship to Fed and state levels (let's even keep our town taxes with the garbage pick up and the police and the parks and the firemen, library, etc. for the sake of arguement), then these families could have full time moms at home raising their kids. 40% is probably what an average mother contributes, with 60% from the dads (I'm generalizing badly, but bear with me) STRANGLEHOLD ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS and MEDICAL LISCENSURE IN GENERAL Getting stoned is just a little bit of drugs being illegal. It costs millions to get a new drug to market so it is essentially illegal for small start-ups to invent medicine. And hugely expensive to buy new medicines because of the development costs. For all we know, a free market in medicine could've solved cancer or even death by now if the industry wasn't so heavily cartelized through regulation. After you get rid of them, we could also stop liscensure of doctors, get rid of HMOs and on and on. This is the differenece between us dying and living in many instances. If the state has taken from me 40 years of life at some point, I'll be pretty pissed. There's two more for the pile! * My family is fortunate enough to have a stay at home mommie.

I think you may need to edit the line "Finding North with an iPod" in EA - you suggest that it is something impossible. I think an Ipod now between maps and the compass apps can show North quite well. On the second edition may I suggest changing it to "finding North with a ham sandwhich" or "finding North with a dead hamster" (Nitpicking of course, I'm enjoying the book)

Two subtler indicators of inflation I've noticed recently is the advertising of the arbritrary price of $5 for a lunch, mostly because it is a nominal milestone. Subway has the $5 footlong and $5 lunch specials and McDonalds is now advertising "5 meals under 5 dollars". And this message is out because most of the meals are well over $5. Even someone as young as 30 will still have the mental picture of $3 has a reasonable sum for a low-cost lunch. The other thing is that at the grocery store you can see the message "still the same size" on various items, such as Ben and Jerry's icecream, suggesting that portions of food are shrinking. This is all nuance compared with going to the gas pump of course.

Reading your first post, I would look for a city with: - Intelligent and exciting culture - Young people - A good professional economy - A music scene 1, 2, and 4 probably means somewhere with a lot of colleges. My top west coast options would be San Diego, San Francisco, Portland OR, and Seattle. A huge portion of my musician college friends moved to Portland and love it. Lot's of music and it's the beer capital of the US. Nice weather. I haven't been, but did live in OR for a while inland and it was very nice. Reportedly, Seattle has all of the characteristics listed above. Historically a big music scene (although I'd be they all whine about the old days) Haven't been. San fransisco is a delight, I've been as a tourist. My tech friends though say it is cripplingly expensive They report of having millionairre friends who can barely afford apartments in the run down parts of town. There must be a way to make it work though, obviously their bell hops and dishwashers must somehow live there. Been to San diego once and it was nice. The metro is tiny it seems. Don't know much about it. I lived in LA for about six months. It's sprawling and doesn't have much of anything I listed above. There's pockets that don't suck, but I'd steer clear. Spent a day in Denver. The city part seemed sleepy and barren to me. Las Vegas is for retirees and partiers, I've heard. And there's just the one industry of vacation/gambling. I know this isn't much information, but you have the whole internet at your disposal!

hmm, good question. i would say for me yes. if could explain every aspect of my life in a logical rational manner, i would cease believing in God. I'm saying that i atribute my minor mircles to a supernatural event, and i attribe supernatural events to God. if I had been born in China, i probably would belive that what happened was caused by Budda. I fully accept this. So it sounds like (correct me if I'm mistaken) that your beleif is arbitrary. I would find that very frustrating. You'd be better off it seems following scripture; then at least you could point to the book as to what guided the decision.

This thread keeps stirring up memories of my city move. Here's another thing I never would've guessed coming from the small rural town: In Boston (and I would assume other big cities) it is totally common to find a roomate situation with strangers. Back then it was through the classifieds in the entertainment weekly but I'm sure it's on Craigslist or similar now. I actually met my wife (of 15 years now) through a roomate ad in the paper. As you review/pick cities, go ahead and look on Craigslist for opportunities and rents. You'll also avoid a lot of the first month expenses. Also, in many cities owning a car is a total liability, so factor that into your planning too.

Something else to consider; your family and friends might be supportive of your move, but expect many to take a dump all over it, tell you that you're crazy, stupid, wreckless, etc. Some out of fear/concern, others jealous of your gumption. When my friend and I were leaving, my parents (recently divorced) took us out to dinner to send us off and my dad slipped me $300 for gas money. When we left my friend's house, his dad chewed us out for an hour, telling us we were stupid, said we couldn't possibly make it, told us we had no plan, and generally forbade us from going. He soon after contacted family members of his in Massachusetts and instructed them to NOT let us stay with them under any circumstances to make sure our move would be sabotaged if we needed to call them. It was awful!

Hi Morse, She is generally allowed to pick up logs, but their not really toys and they are heavy, so we discourage that just like we don't particularly like her picking up glass vases or stereo equipment. The line of this discussion was mostly about the fire, which my family has in the livingroom in the fireplace and use during the winter. The kids are fascinated by it and we make a big deal stacking the wood, taking turns lighting the fire with long matches and sometimes even roast marshmallows. It's a big feature of our winter nights and weekends. This happened like twice: the baby sees the fun and picks up a log and approaches the blaze to put it on the fire, which is hot and can burn you etc. We don't let any of the children add wood to the fire on their own and on every occasion have not let the two year old put wood on the fire. She certainly will, if she wants, when she is older when I don't think she's going to fall into it.

If you have the time and the patience, you can say "sure, no problem" and let her have a go at doing it herself. Obviously, you will hover close by in case she is about to get into a hazardous situation. When our children were younger (they're teenagers now), they would sometimes reject our offers of help because they wanted to do something themselves. Sometimes they would succeed with an ambitious task that we had thought was beyond their ability. More often, they would abandon the task halfway and say "now you do it". You can't expect a two-year-old to deduce things in the same way as an adult, so yes there is a risk that she will try to put logs on the fire in your absence. But there is also a risk if you previously said "no", because when you leave the room she might decide that she is now free to put the log on the fire. So you need to make the environment safe for her either way. If a child perceives that you are thwarting their desires, it increases the incentive for them to be "naughty" (by your standards) when they think you're not watching. If a child perceives that you are "on their side" because you are always helping them to achieve their desires, they are more likely to respect your decision when you really do need to say "no". A couple of other points. Is their mother around? If not, being a single parent makes it more difficult. Also, sometimes the older sibling will happily help to look after the safety of the younger one (yes, even at age 7) if they are given some encouragement and shown that they have your confidence. Thanks Rlbuck. Our family is together almost always. My wife is a full time mom and I work at home and the older kids are tasked with watching for the younger one. I agree with what you say, it is largely consistent with what I beleive. Perhaps the sticking point might be how safety rules are delivered w/r/t whether they are helpful, nurturing interactions or bald expressions of domination and power. If I explain to my daughter why I don't allow her to put the wood on the fire I'm helping, if its 'because I say so' it's power. And you might point out (not to put words in your mouth) that there might be a better approach to the former which is more productive (fair?)

But why does she cry? She cries because her self-esteem is being squelched. She sees that daddy can fuel the fire, and that the five-year-old can fuel the fire, but she is not considered good enough. The alternative approach is to say "sure, let daddy help you with that". Then the two of you together pick up the oversized log and place it in the fire (with you guiding it, of course, and protecting her). She grins broadly with pride, beams lovingly at you, and the two of you have a lovely bonding moment. I think that's a perfectly delightful approach and I agree. I have to admit, I don't always have the luxury of thinking something like that through when managing six little hands by the fire. I probably make sub-optimal plays every day. It's easier to do in hindsight than when caught in the moment of the baby approaching the fire. Rlbuck, you seem very thoughtful about parenting and describe good approaches. How do you think the baby/firelog would play out if after I offered to help with that if she pulled away and suggested she would do it by herself? Do I then have to fall back to a 'no' position? Secondly, I leave the room for a moment. Does the two-year-old now beleive she has permission to put logs on the fire in my absence? (we have a screen, we're not gone for a moment, etc., but let's say we don't even want her to try in the first place)

I just want to add that I would highly recommend doing the city while you are young e.g., before your carreer is too engrained, before you have a family, etc. It's so much easier when you have so little to lose, the city life best suits all that great stuff (meeting people, jamming music, talking philosophy, etc.), and many tire of being poor and urban as they get older and prefer to have a backyard for their kids and such.

I am looking forward to hearing Stef's take on parenting after his daughter is born. My kids don't cry much and we haven't had rapacious terrible twos, but then I do a lot of the same things Stef does and generally share the majority of his beliefs.

But why does she cry? She cries because her self-esteem is being squelched. She sees that daddy can fuel the fire, and that the five-year-old can fuel the fire, but she is not considered good enough. The alternative approach is to say "sure, let daddy help you with that". Then the two of you together pick up the oversized log and place it in the fire (with you guiding it, of course, and protecting her). She grins broadly with pride, beams lovingly at you, and the two of you have a lovely bonding moment. I think that's a perfectly delightful approach and I agree. I have to admit, I don't always have the luxury of thinking something like that through when managing six little hands by the fire. I probably make sub-optimal plays every day. It's easier to do in hindsight than when caught in the moment of the baby approaching the fire.

I did this, essentially. When I was 22 and living in the shit town of Kalamazoo MI I had just got my degree in Watercolor painting and acting from a third tier state school. A friend and I decided to move to Boston to find bigger and better things, among them, find jobs in a bigger market, meet musicians (I'm a hobby player/composer), and meet new and smart people. This was in 1993, so there wasn't an internet to conduct a job search. I did get the paper and sent resumes. We came with only what could fit in the back of a pick-up truck - no furniture, just some clothes, blanket, a boom box, and a microwave (oddly). We had $2,200 between the two of us! I'd like to say we had an elborate plan, but really the thing that made it work was that there was no material cost of failure. If it didn't work, we would just have to turn around, at worst, and go back to Kalamazoo with nothing. Essentially end up just like we started. The urgency of making it work also helped. We lived in a cheap hotel and ate microwave burritos for a week. Found jobs just to fund being there and rented a tiny apartment - we made all of these decisions knowing we were just "making it work" and that once we got our bearings there would be time to find a better job, better apartment, etc. It was a blast! Everything worked out. Mets tons of people. My music carreer didn't happen (I'm a hobbyist now), but I had a totally fun band that got to play all the small clubs, and we both eventually built professional carreers unimagined in the small shitty town. There's so much more economic activity and serious business in a big city that you can really advance a carreer quickly. I was earning low six figures by the age of 29. It comes down to this: If you don't do it, don't take the chance, there's a 100% chance you will fail moving to a big city. If I were to do it again (pretend I'm young again too) I would spend the next month learning Microsoft Office and maybe design software or a database program (pick one, or neither). I would then send resumes to temp staffing firms (contigency agencies that place administrative staff into companies temporarily needing help, like when their secretaries go on maternal leave). Talk to them on the phone, they always want to build their database, and let them know your target arrival date. You'll get a good sense if you'll have job coverage when you arrive. Plus, you'll get to see what working in the city is like and may even make some contacts. If you can, acquire a suit for job interviews. Try to look normal, clean cut, serious. Just pretend even if your not. You get your hair reshaved into a mohawk after you get your bearings. If the office doesn't jazz you than your urban job options will probably be in the service industry. If you can scout ahead try to find an apartment by neighborhoods. Look for student ghettos. The toughest obstacle/biggest expense is probably the first month at the new apartment, because the rents will shock you in the city and you may have to pay first, last, security and finder fee if you use a realtor. This hit us hard, and I did have to plea to my mother to borrow another $800 or so at the time to get through this.

That's the effect, but I don't think it's the motivation. I'm sure tamslab's genuine motivation is to avoid his child being physically harmed. But wow, what hard work it must have been raising his three children if he escalated every safety issue into a conflict! When our kids were toddlers, we let them play with small knives. We gave them some balsa wood so that they could do something constructive with the knives, rather than (for example) slashing the upholstery. If they cut themselves, it teaches them that (a) knives are sharp, and (b) their parents were wise and helpful when telling them that knives can cut skin and it will hurt. It's better for them to learn about dangerous situations, rather than being protected from dangerous situations until they are in control of really dangerous things like guns or cars or explosives. Scissors: Let them play with scissors. Tell them that scissors are sharp and can cut and hurt. Give them stuff to cut. Let them discover that scissors can hurt. Make sure you have an old pair of scissors so that they can try to cut rocks and wood and metal. I don't think either of our two children ever drew blood with scissors of knives (unlike my own childhood; I was always getting cut). Climbing tall walls: Let them climb walls. If you let them start early, they will start with small walls, and will have discovered the consequences of falling before they move on to tall walls. The top of a wall is an empowering place for a child to be. Let them climb trees. Explain how they should keep three out of four limbs in contact with the tree at all times. Explain how they must work out how they are going to get down, before they go up. I did need to rescue my 4-year-old from the top of a tree that she couldn't climb down. Now both children can climb up to their treehouse without a ladder, and love to climb over the roof of our house (much to the consternation of our neighbors). Walking into the street: In a hazardous place like a supermarket car park, we put the children in their backpack-style child carriers. They loved riding up high on our backs. It's great for the parents too, being able to chat freely with the child while going places. I would recommend a child-carrying backpack to all able-bodied parents. From an early age our children had played in toy ride-on cars, so they soon learned that collisions were painful. By the age of three they understood that if you ran into the street and a car hit you, you would be squashed. So they never ran into the street. If you shout "don't run into the street" while chasing after the child, it turns it into a game and of course the child runs away from you into the street. So don't do that. Most of the time, a child's natural instinct is to stay close to the parent when going places. Putting logs onto the fireplace: We allowed that, although I don't think they wanted to do that as toddlers, I think it was from about 4 onwards, when they were wanting to do things that adults do. But when they were 2, we were already having campfires in the garden and letting them toast marshmallows. And if they get a small burn, despite our warnings, they learn that fires can burn. But I don't think they ever burned themselves, although I often burned myself as a child. We had a designated part of the garden where they were allowed to gather leaves and twigs and light their own fires. They had to ask for the matches though; we always kept those hidden and out of reach. I could go on through the list, but there's not much point. Some of the things I would have taken immediate action about. For example, I would immediately take the marble out of the child's mouth. But I guess since my wife and I were generally allowing our toddlers to experience the world, they were happy enough to let us occasionally act first and explain later. We never thought we could "teach" by "forbidding" though. Hi Rlbuck, My wife and I do pretty much the same. For just sheer practicallity we let the older kids do things that we don't let the baby do. That's why the sissors are out, the five year old is learing how to use them, the two year old just doesn't have the motor skills yet. I think a lot of points in this whole discussion are looking exagerated. For example, I'll let my five year old put a log on the fire. The two year old wants to do the same and picks up an oversized log. I can gently say "no, let daddy do that" to the two year old and if she's in a mood she'll cry for a second. I don't consider this some grand conflict. Kitty likes to scratch! Thanks for the free analysis of my family, Joesito. It was downright ferocious.

Hi Joseito and Morse, This is getting strangely hot. I'm not trying to be devisive nor elusive nor sarcastic. I wasn't there at the cafe and didn't survey the parking lot or street side, so I really don't know the relative safety. This said, a stroller is a dandy way to safely transport a child in areas where there are other cars driving around, especially given that very young children may not want to hold hands and that parents usually are carrying a bunch of stuff with them and in your situation, would've had to use their hands to push the buggy. I'm having a hard time imaging what kind of toddlers show reliably safe behaviors where cars are parked. Just getting kids out of a restaurant is a trial. The entirety of my safety list is not sarcastic and is all routine. In my home we stock sissors, have a cement wall, have access to a street, put wood in our fireplace, occasionally break a glass, have small toys (like marbles), use knifes when eating, have curtains with cords on them, get plastic bags from the grocery store, use dish soap, occasionally have a bird die in our yard, and use a stroller when going through parking lots. These safety issues, like my example of walking with my children roadside and my toddler wanting to wander into the street, don't come with a lot of negotiating time. We have dozens of interactions daily where we can cooperate, communicate, dissagree, educate, etc. but when the child is walking into the street you don't take 10 minutes to understand her perspective, you pick her the hell up as soon as you can, crying be damned, because you don't want her to get hit by a car. Going back to my first post, I was only suggesting that not all crying and parental behavior is homogenous. The parent may have been needlessly domineering towards the child, or, perhaps needed to safely navigate a parking lot. One is worth criticism, the other is plain necessity. Anyways, good luck with your activism/street campaign. I doubt you'll experience much gratitude. I'd probably recommend starting with really clear-cut targets, like when there is hitting or yelling.

How is there not theism? Dear, your soaking in it right now. Phillip brought it to this board. It's manifested right here by Phillip's beleif. The god doesn't exist, but the belief in human minds seems to be not just real, but downright pervasive in the last 6,000 years across billions of people. I get what you are saying, but nit-picking the term ruins some of its short-hand utility, in my opinion.

How did you decide that it was god? Magically protecting your neck is clearly the domain of a Fairy God Mother. Or what prevented you from inventing some other device, like maybe magic Earth energy or an Angel? If you don't mind an unsolicited recommendation (it's the internet!), you sound very curious about this. Try taking a little dive in the space and read a book on it. Sam Harris' "End of Faith" or "Letter to a Christian Nation" are absolute delights to read even if it doesn't change your views. (You can ignore his call for a world government). Richard Dawkins is a bit snarky but "the God Delusion" was a fun read. And I beleive Stef has a book on it (haven't read it, but it's on order) and he's done a zillion podcasts.

Hi Morse Code Studders and Joesito, I'll look forward to watching Stef's video (I'm listening in order, currently on 502 somewhere in 2007), thanks for the recommendation. My personal experience* with the terrible twos, which I use as short hand for this developmental time (I don't think it is genetic or philosophical), is that babies pretty much have one way of expressing themselves as newborns which is crying. As they learn other things, such as a few words and assertiveness, they still fall back to crying in a heartbeat with any frustration with a disproportionate reaction. As a parent I can with all of the sweetness, friendliness, respect, maturity, philosophy, intelligence, patience, understanding, and kindness insist that they don't do something for their own safety and this happens all the time. E.g., Please put down the sissors, don't climb this tall cement wall, don't walk into the street, you can't put a log on the fireplace, put down that shard of broken glass, don't chew on the marble, get the knife out of your mouth, don't wrap the curtain cord around your neck, don't put the plastic bag over your head, don't drink the dish soap, don't touch the dead animal, get in the buggy before we navigate the busy parking lot, etc. and it will elicit a fairly hysterical fit of crying for a minute. What you both suggest about the parents' domination/immaturity/power is likely true in a lot of circumstances and for a lot of parents, but a lot of times it's important to teach and prevent children from doing bad things and it results in dissatisfaction from the child. I'm all in for peaceful parenting, but it would be a disservice to the child to not teach them even the basics of safely navigating life at fear that they may get upset sometimes. Please feel free to critique my handling of my daughter roadside (per my first post). You have the anonymity of the internet and I'll be an absolute polite pussy cat in my defense. Joesieto can practice his parenting activism! Peace! * I have a 2, 5 and 7 year olds. I've been actively dealing with this developmental age actively, every single day, and with multiple kids for six years running.