Parenting Porcupines

On the blog here.

Episode art: Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

In Season 1, Episode 14, we covered the first part of this conversation which focused on the need for open discussion about Mental Health. If you haven’t watched it you can watch it here.

Equally important a discussion is one about how we support our children and why focusing on mental health is important. Mental health and wellbeing have become more present in all parenting conversations with articles published regularly that outline the challenges kids are facing, and the impacts of the pandemic.

A recent article published in the Dayton Daily News provides some pretty alarming statistics. But the importance of mental health isn’t just true in just pandemic or time of societal strife.

We saw the need for the conversations before the pandemic with the rise of school shootings from Columbine to Sandy Hook, and more recently (and more locally) Townville Elementary here in the Upstate of South Carolina. In all of these stories, a common theme of parents not understanding how to talk to their kids about what help they needed emerged. Parents not being equipped to have mental health conversations with their kids.

For far too long, the discussion around mental health has been discouraged, and mental illness itself has been stigmatized in a way that is grossly detrimental to the health of a society as a whole. 

1. What challenges have you faced in raising your children, or seen in the children in your circles and families?
2. How do you talk to your kids about their mental health?
3. How do you support your children to make sure their mental health is nurtured in the same way as their physical health?
4. How do we, as parents, ensure that the next generation shatters the stigma and works toward a future where people care for one another?
5. How do we support each other as parents in recognizing mental health crises and managing them?
6. How is all this important as we work toward a free and voluntary society?

Regardless of your experience with kids who have mental illness or other challenges, you can support your community by allowing for discussion without judgment and fostering an environment of support.

No one is suggesting that not talking to your kids about their mental health makes you a bad parent or that the parents of the kids who commit atrocities like Columbine, Va Tech, Sandy Hook, or countless others are bad parents. Ya’ll know we don’t judge like that.

What we are passionate about is awareness. And being armed with the resources, links, friends, support, and compassion you need to usher in a new era of mental well being. Teach your kids about being healthy not just through diet, exercise, and standing up to bullies, but through recognizing their own challenges, struggles, and developing the awareness and courage to ask for help.

Ready to support our show? Smach those LIKE, SHARE, and FOLLOW buttons.

Wanna send us your money? Give it to the SCLP for now. We’re still deciding how and if we’re gonna make this a thing.

On the blog here.

Episode art: Photo by C Technical on Pexels.com

When Hollie was little, I used to send kids home when they asked for food. They could have water and they had to drink it in the kitchen. Sometimes I made popcorn. But they had to eat it in the kitchen.

We leave cookies and candy on the bottom shelf of our pantry, easily accessible by Hollie and her pint-sized friends. But Hollie knew how much she was allowed to have. The others? Not so much. They were denied access to snacks and candy and would binge. I mean, BINGE the food if it was made available.

I told Hollie it was my intention to be the meanest mom in the neighborhood. Want a soda? Go home. Juice? Go home. Snack? Home. Home. Home. And I told Hollie that under no circumstances should she ask for or accept snacks anywhere else. If she was hungry, she should come home.

Is that the kind of mean we’re talking about? Or is it more like: Hollie wants to quit swim and I won’t let her.

When does “being mean” cross over from teaching manners and resilience to neglect and abuse? No one is suggesting that you should say ugly things, hurt your children, or deny them basic freedoms and comforts.

What we’re suggesting is that parenting requires a kind of distance. The kind that might mean your kids don’t always like you. 

And it’s a good thing they don’t always like you. If they did, you’re doing it wrong.

Kids don’t like what’s good for them:

• Vegetables — how do you make your kids eat?
• Homework — how do you look over their school and study habits?
• Exercise — how do you ensure they’re getting enough?
• Outside time vs. screen time — how do you keep a healthy balance of each?
• Money — how do you teach them to earn and then spend (not the reverse)?
• Manners — how do you instruct them to be politely inquisitive and not nosey or naggy? Eat like clean, rational humans, not neanderthals?

What role does obedience play in these interactions?

How much free will are your children exercising at any given time?

How do we rationalize liberty and parenting? 

Kids don’t know what’s best for them, they have limited experience. It’s our job, as parents, to leverage our own experience to direct theirs. And that can sometimes feel like bossing them around, being authoritarian, or hard work to maintain discipline and resist the temptation to be liked.

On the blog here.

Episode art: Photo by David McBee on Pexels.com

All right, in the first place, we think of this as “Don’t hurt people. Don’t take their stuff.” And we think about “stuff” as including property. After all, the founding fathers wanted “life, liberty, and property” as the inalienable rights.

Turns out property is a limited commodity and so not inalienable, but whatever.

Now, though, property rights tend to be applied primarily to the land upon which you live, the assets which you possess, and the nouns you have dominion over — people, places, and things — where you are in control of the treatment and destiny thereof.

To this point, Exhibit A: Family buys land, decides to live on it during the pandemic because, you know, self sufficiency and covid restrictions and all that. (this link) The county decided — you read that right — the county acting on behalf of all its citizens decided that this man, who bought this property, needed to register his residence, and pay appropriate taxes on the dwellings that were not there.

Because let’s be honest, these power grabs are always about paying the appropriate taxes to have the inalienable rights we’re told we already have.

“Before I could go to court, they showed up at my property, the building inspector and the code enforcement officer, and told me that I had to be off my land or they were going to seize my vehicles and my assets…”

So not only is the county making decisions about what he can do with his own property and what dwellings are fit to live in, they are threatening his compliance by seizure of the very properties it deems unworthy of the man’s living.

What the actual … ?

Try this statement: “Leslie joins a growing list of cases involving homeowner’s rights, at a time when compassion could go a long way.” Looking at you, Polk County, for being the dicks on today’s podcast.

So let’s talk about this for a second. Whose land is it? What rights do you actually have on your own land?

Then let’s talk about city and county ordinances and who they benefit and why they’re passed.

Then let’s talk about HOA ordinances and other low-stakes, but ridiculous threats standards that have us all running scared to build a deck or paint our front doors orange.

When do you rights begin and your neighbor’s rights end?

What are the mechanisms for determining whose rights supercede another’s?

And finally, because this is the whole point of the broadcast, how do you explain this shit to your kids?

On the blog here.

Episode art: Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

It’s a pretty common story in this day and age. Kids graduating high school with the expectation is that they will go to college and get a degree. Whether because their peers are doing it, their guidance counselors are pushing them toward it, or because their families have the expectation, more and more kids are opting to go to college upon high school graduation. 

Placing value on vocational training, trade school and community colleges has seemingly become a thing of the past as more and more people are placing more value on those degrees than the alternative. 

For decades alternative paths (which used to be primary) have become more stigmatized and yet, kids are borrowing more and more money to fund what amounts to a rite of passage, while our government continues to subsidize public universities (link). 

All the while there are shortages of qualified workers to fill skilled positions such as plumbers, electricians, welders, etc., many of which are respectable trades wherein workers make six figures a year (link).

TV Personality Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs and Deadliest Catch) has been a huge supporter of trades and community college. His foundation Mike Rowe Works is working to promote those opportunities available. Rowe, and allies promotethe means to achieve success in needed, high-paying fields without racking up tons of college debt. 

A good bit of this comes down to: How do we measure the success of a society? Is it intellect, thinking, and innovation? Or is it productivity, stability, and functionality? And, further, are these two things mutually exclusive?

As we push college on kids without providing them all their options we are creating a vacuum where they are amassing huge amounts of debt for a degree that qualifies them for a job that is no longer available. Without additional education (masters, doctorate, etc.) some degrees are largely worthless as far as the marketplace is concerned. 

Is the purpose to get a job? Or to think? Universities used to be about higher-education, learning to think critically, preparing our privileged students to take on the big intellectual challenges of society. But needing enrollment for revenue, and needing to prove Return on Investment (ROI), universities have swung far toward the public education purpose of preparing people for work. Even going so far as to measure their success on job placement statistics.

As parents, if we aren’t talking to our kids about all their options are we doing them a disservice? Are we doing a disservice to our communities?

The answer is yes, we are. We are allowing them to incur great debt before they even purchase their first home, while robbing our communities of tradespeople it needs. When your pipes burst you don’t call a doctor. When your electrical panel shorts out you don’t call a doctor. When your transmission goes out you don’t call an accountant. You call a plumber, an electrician and a mechanic. 

When we consider education, we must consider skills in two categories: 1) applied skills — those which earn us employment, make us useful, and are in demand, and 2) provisional skills — those which make us capable of growing, learning, advancing, and innovating. Then find the right programs, at the right time, to deliver both applied and provisional skills. We cannot advance our careers if we only know what we need to know to be certified right now. And we cannot find work with accolades like “adaptability” and “potential.”

These options are not mutually exclusive either. Many high schools partner with local vocational schools to provide kids with opportunities to get training while in school. Why aren’t more parents talking to their kids about these options, or why aren’t they talking to their schools about adding them? Why are we not promoting the option of going to a community college to get a two year degree in a skilled field before transferring to a university? 

On the blog here.

Episode art: Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Social Security and how we’re never gonna see that money. “Benefit” and other euphemisms for how social security fucks us.

Even former Texas Governor Rick Perry called it a ponzi scheme. So it’s not that hard to understand. Here’s the basics of how it works:

Current workers pay, former workers accept the money.

BUT a ponzi scheme is illegal and if the government does it, it’s not illegal. Great logic, right? (link)

But the bigger question, and one for which Social Security is just a single example, is “What is government’s role?”

Libertarians are known for wanting government to have little (NO right, Jess?) role in civic life. We have anarchists in our midst. We believe humans will collaborate to care for one another and organize a fair and just society without the interference of arbitrary power structures like government.

That said, our new media is on fire with stories of Ted Cruz abdicating his throne as king of Texas. Oh, wait, he’s the Senator. One of two. A state’s representative to the federal governing body. He has no power in Texas. Be gone, Ted, before someone drops a house on you.

Why is everyone so pissed at him? It’s not like he can actually save Texas from snow.

Not even Elsa could save Texas from snow.

The failures in Texas are all state government- and regulator-caused.

Does our news media not know Ted Cruz has no power in Texas?

Who doesn’t know that Ted Cruz couldn’t have fixed the snow storm?

This seems as easy to understand as “social security is a ponzi scheme” but maybe we just know more than the average citizen. Or reporter. Or news editor.

So let’s get at this thing:

Why do people think government can solve everything? Because government tells them it can.

Why do people wait for government to fix their circumstances? Because government tells them it will.

Why do we blame each other when it’s government’s fault that processes slow down, systems get corrupted, and shit doesn’t get done? Because government doesn’t take blame. Ever. They have no accountability.

And let’s be clear about the institutions that are supposed to provide accountability — voters, the media — are failing to do so.

On the blog here.

Episode art: Photo by ROMAN ODINTSOV on Pexels.com

It’s almost Valentine’s Day and the GenXer in Kasie wants to reject the Hallmark Holiday on principle. 

• According to this link science says it’s perfectly okay to swear in front of children.
• And this article that argues it’s time to get the eff over it already, we can all be caring and loving and still let off some profanity now and then.
• This article gives us stages of cussing. Let’s discuss:

1. Adorable little shits — babies don’t know what’s going on. Score: A
2. Foul-mouthed mimics — toddlers repeat what you say, sometimes with hilarious mispronunciations and uses. Score: B+
3. Shocked sweary sponges — elementary school kids have a complicated relationship with swearing because they know it’s not supposed to be done by them. Or you. Score: B-
4. Evolving curse machines — as they grow toward teen hood, they may use swearing on the sly to gain street cred with their friends but are likely to hide the habit from you. Score B.
5. Luck pushing years — as tweens and pre-teens, you’ll see them try to see what they can get away with. It’s harder to reprimand when they know you do it. So should you just let them? Score: C
6. All bets are off — as teens, they’re likely to aim those cuss words right at you. So isn’t it better to teach them who the real target is? The government. Duh. Score: A.

We get real about what others think of us and how that changes or influences our behavior. We talk about being authentic and wearing a mask and how common that “mask” is in Southern society. We talk about whether not our “mask” person is who we really are.

It gets deep.

On the blog here.

Episode art: Photo by Kaique Rocha on Pexels.com

Last week, we talked about how licensing laws and ordinances impede entry into the market for so many, even kids. What happens once you have made your way through the red tape? Entrepreneurs pay a premium for choosing freedom.

Some notes on tax rates here.

Every wage we earn and everything we do is taxed, and that taxation is forced upon us without any “opt out” box to check. While we elect the people who make those tax rules, do we really think they were considering us when they designed these schemes?

We don’t often hear about kids being taxed in their entrepreneurial endeavors, but it does happen (link here)

How are we talking to our kids now about taxation to prepare them for entry into the market, or are we?

What age is too young to start talking about this with your kids? How do you approach the conversation in an age-appropriate way? 

How do we encourage our children to take entrepreneurial paths when these are the statistics they will be working against (link):

• Majority of small business owners spend more than $1,000 on the administration of federal taxes:
• 15% of small business owners spend more than $10,000 on the administration of federal taxes.
• 16% spend $5,001-$10,000.
• 33% spend $1,001-$5,000.
• 15% spend $501-$1,000.
• 21% spend less than $500.

Entrepreneurship offers “freedom” but it’s also really hard. As many resources as are available for entrepreneurs, at the end of the day, you gotta build the business. You gotta have a product worth buying and a sales force able to sell it.

There’s a kind of romance on entrepreneurism — how wonderful it is to be in charge of your own destiny — but what if it wasn’t the exception, it was the rule?

What if we didn’t expect companies to be surrogate parents?

What if we didn’t tie medical and dental, retirement and other “40-hour-per-week” benefits to someone else’s company? What if we were all independent contractors?

On the blog here.

Episode art: Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

Topic: Kids getting policed for not having a business license

It started with a meme. As Libertarians, we know the best way for government to help business is to stay the fuck out of it. So why are they all up in everyone’s right to make a living and support their families? Why does government think it needs to regulate everything from hair weaving and ladyscaping to taxi driving and food preparation?

Our take: Business licensing prohibits entrepreneurship.

So here’s the story on the lemonade stand aggressively trying to refresh the neighborhood at the market-monopoly rate of 75-cents-per-cup. So what are the regulations for? To protect citizens from unscrupulous business persons? Like 7-year-olds?

How about to ensure the government gets its fair share of your efforts?

In business, we analyze industries using Porter’s Five Forces (I won’t business nerd to death you guys with this, but…) one of the forces is “threat of new entrants” and the other is “threat of substitutes.” Unregulated markets have low barriers to entry and a high threat of substitutes. It’s not just Red Bull and Monster Energy, it’s every carbonated beverage calling itself and “Energy Drink” and the others have to compete. Which is what they’re supposed to do.

But take the case of Uber in London — Cabbies are unionized there and the union put enough pressure lawmakers that they raised the barriers to entry to Uber couldn’t operate. Think about how Air BnB gets around the Hospitality Tax so many cities love to impose via hotels. Regulations are in place to limit competition, not encourage it.

And them that makes the regs wins. 

This week, it was Robinhood, the app for day-trading and gamifying stock market portfolios to interest younger investors. It’s a self-proclaimed “democratization of investing” and yet when thing went wonky this week for the regulated industries — fully within regulations, mind you — Robinhood was pressured to limit the access its investors had to Gamestop stock.

Them that makes the gold makes the rules indeed.

But … kids?

These cops decided to support the young entrepreneurs instead. 

And true free enterprise is represented when big-time Lemonade Dealer Countrytime decided to get behind those neighborhood stands (link here).

So should neighbors be pissed about the traffic and call the cops?

Should the city be worried about other businesses taking that lax enforcement as the possibility that they can get away with handy-manning, lawn-cutting, and car-washing without expecting law enforcement to shut their operation down?

What about those fundraising “businesses” (cheerleader car wash) that don’t have permits?

And that freedom to assemble that also shouldn’t need a fucking permit?

Can we call city and county permitting what it really is? A cash grab? Authoritarianism? Busy-body-ness?

Show notes are on the blog at parentingporcupines.com Click here.

Thumbnail photo credit: marrio31 on Pexels.com

Show notes are on the blog parentingporcupines.com Click here.

Thumbnail photo credit: Pixabay on pexels.com