Parenting, Business Politics, and Terrorism

What the heck is JJ on where he sees a connection between parenting, business politics and terrorism? Well, I'll explain the connection I've made, and you can decide if I'm on drugs.

When I was a wee lad knee high to a grasshopper, my parents had two drastically different parenting styles. My dad was the diciplinarian; when I did something wrong, the immediate response was to punish me. On the other hand, my mom would want to understand the reasoning behind why I did something. I wouldn't be condemned immediately if there was what my mom deemed good cause for my actions. I was a bad little kid.

Because one of my parents would have severe repercussions for something I did while the other would respond with kindness to my actions. For example, in 5th grade I would usually steal about $20 every morning to buy a bunch of candy down the road and have a trivia contest on the bus in the morning and afternoons where candy was the reward. Naturally, my parents noticed losing $100 a week. The result? My dad wanted me punished, no allowance, chores, etc. My mom wanted to know why I felt the need to take money on top of my $10 a week allowance. The end result? My allowance was increased. Because I stole. (My dad was a fireman, mom is currently a senior VP with ABN Amro, the second largest financial firm in the world. She's the one with all the persuasive language and leadership skills).

As a result of this, I would often pit my mom against my dad. The end result would be that they wouldn't be getting along, my dad would throw his hands in the air, and I wouldn't be punished; my dad would for trying to punish me.

Business politics work much the same way. It's all about keeping the people who are for you between you and the people who are out to get you. I'm failing to come up with a specific example, but I have seen the same technique I used to use on my parents used at the office. People pit their enemies against eachother so they can avoid a fight and, as a result, come out on top.

Now, for the terrorism link. In the UN right now, we have the same situation I was in as a kid. Countries are aiding terrorism. This means countries are funding actions designed to kill civilians of their enemies. In the UN, we have my dad, the US and England. They both want to take those nations to task for their actions. I mean, they're funding groups that want to kill you. Not a soldier, but you, a regular citizen. The US and UK believe there should be a severe punishment attached to that crime. However, at the same time, countries like France, Germany, and Russia are playing the role of my mom. They want to understand the terrorist's wants and satisfy that need. For example, Iran has stated they intend to continue with their nuclear program despite warnings and requests from the UN. So what happens? We incresase their allowance.

At the same time, our terrorist enemies, who want all of us dead, are pitting France, Germany, and Russia against the US and UK. We're fighting with one another when we should be working towards ending the terrorist threat. Yes, we have different ideas of what will work to end this threat, but we've gone far beyond that. We have the US digging and digging for fault with Germany, France, Russia and the UN, while those four are desperatly digging for dirt on the Bush administration.

Terrorism is like that manipulative kid who, despite the fact that they should be working together, has turned his parents against one another because they tried to dicipline him. We need to see through this trick. Stop pointing fingers at one another, look at where the real threat is, and start pointing your fingers there.

Like the spin there JJ although I believe that this is a spin that was sung back durin the Mission Impossible days (tv show not movies).
I agree, that it does indeed sound like the "brat" playing both sides to get to their end. Unfortunately, that end seems more and more to be the annihilation of the western world. Death to all infedils so to speak.

Well, the stakes are quite a bit higher. If a parent blows it, they ruin one life. If the UN blows it, we ruin civilization as we know it. It's really ironic that, in this war, the terrorists biggest supporters preach tolerance, while the people they're saying we should be tolerant of (suicide bombers and the like) are totally intollerant of anything outside of their beliefs. This means that, if we achieve the level of tolerance some are requesting, we will have to be totally intollerant of anything non-Islam. Look at the Netherlands, for example. They're not allowed to have their flag in public schools because muslims have said they find it offensive. In the name of tolerance, no one is allowed to see their nations flag at school because a few activist muslims said it was against Islam. If national soverignty is against Islam, then I hope the whole world is ok with being against Islam.

Wait, I don't get the Mission Impossible reference, and I can't edit my post...

Did they have a show/series of shows I missed which had a country turning other countries against one another to further their own cause?

What's interesting is the game Ace Combat 5's storyline goes along the same lines. A weaker force pits two superpowers against one another so that they could clean up after the two decimate eachother.

Originally posted by junglejake

I mean, they're funding groups that want to kill you. Not a soldier, but you, a regular citizen.

Sure, the evil terrorist is sitting in his cave somewhere, sharpening his knife, one beady eye on a picture of Mom, Pop, Jake and little Sally, all the while mumbling about how much he "hates your freedom".

To use your interesting analogy, the world looks a bit more like this:

Okay, Dad is the US. Good ol' manly man Dad. Mom is the the rest of the sane world. (I didn't miss the meaning behind assigning gender roles). The little kid is terrorism. You have however left out someone important. Bob, the older brother, who represents corporate interests.

Now Dad wants to keep order in the world, Mom just wants to get along and bring money into the house. While the antics of little brother Jake are annoying and ultimately no real threat to the house, it takes the combination of Dad's discipline and Mom's reasoning to keep little Jake out of trouble. He is after all, the fruit of their loins. (This is such a GOOD analogy!!!)

Meanwhile Bob takes his regular allowance quietly. The model son, unknown to them is busy taking portions of Jake's allowance along with selling the family silverware.

Money from the odd chore comes in handy as well. He tells Dad that Jake could run out under a car, so he gets money building a fence to keep Jake in, all the while teasing Jake about how much he has, and how much Jake hasn't.

To what end does Bob want the money? All the while Mom and Dad are concentrating on their little problem child, he is salting away money for the time when both of them shuffle off the way of all empires and he gets the house. God help Jake then.....

BTW, you were a little bugger of a kid growing up, but I must say an enterprising little bugger!!!!

Originally posted by junglejake
Wait, I don't get the Mission Impossible reference, and I can't edit my post...

Did they have a show/series of shows I missed which had a country turning other countries against one another to further their own cause?

What's interesting is the game Ace Combat 5's storyline goes along the same lines. A weaker force pits two superpowers against one another so that they could clean up after the two decimate eachother.

Yes, infact there were a couple that followed that story line. One was some country in south america and one on the eastern side of the berlin wall.