08.08.07
Potty Training in less than a Year
We commenced potty training with the smallest youngster, about a week or two ago, and since the #1 reason people come to this blog is to read about babies and their poo, I thought I would satisfy the masses and write about everyone’s favourite subject: offspring and excretion.
When the elder child turned two I decided that the sugar-fueled festival of greedmas was the perfect time to train. She had been two for just over a month and by george I was not going to start the new year knee-deep in diapers. I had also been inspired (brainwashed?) by a tattered 1980s penny-dreadful called “Potty Training in Less than a Day”, a program that reports to work with mentally retarded adults and toddlers alike. It was really written for 1980s career women, the heros who made it all the way to the glass ceiling and still had to change diapers when they got home. I set-to, book in hand.
I was instructed by this volume to take my headstrong two-year-old, fill her up with beverages, and teach her about the potty. The goal is to use a drink-n-wet doll to demonstrate potty use, and trick her through the old ‘learn through teaching’ model. Toddler teaches doll to use potty, forces liquid down plastic throat, encourages doll to pee on potty. Mother teaches toddler to use potty, forces liquid down toddler throat, encourages toddler to pee on potty. All the while, theory being, toddler will begin to use pot as needed. Reward? More liquid, and praise. According to the book, within 4 hours toddler would be fully trained.
The aforementioned headstrong toddler refused to drink but I forced the question. She sat on the pot and drank water. She did not process water as quickly as the doll. Also, I think Baby Drink N Wet needed to see the Doll Doctor (she peed out of her legs, not from the little hole). We both became claustrophobic in our tiny bathroom, which was only a few square feet smaller than our kitchen.
The whole process took two weeks, once I learned a crucial difference between my toddler and the successfully trained robots described at length in the book. My headstrong toddler, like most people, prefers to tinkle in private. And her bowel goes on lockdown if there’s an observer within earshot, let alone someone she can actually see. The doll was a fun prop, but since we couldn’t afford one of those expensive anatomically correct dolls from La Corelle, we found it more effective to play at potty with all dolls, real liquid or no. Oh, and also turns out neither she nor I have the attention span to just do one thing for hours on end unless it’s watching TV.
So, fast forward to baby #2. She’s gung ho for potty. Our initial jubilation at her first potty pee was so pleasing to her that she now pees tiny amounts, jumps up and waits for hugs and kisses. She doesn’t quite understand that our excitement was the result of mental calculations (2 packs diapers/month= 40$ = 8 tubs Ben & Jerry’s ICE CREAM!!!!). Anyways, it’s going well. I’ve got no book in hand (second babies always get short shrift) but plenty of praise, and she’s spontaneously teaching her own dolls to potty too (I await the day I have to fish a cabbage patch kid out of the toilet).
Today at the toy store, though, I found a copy of Potty Training in Less than a Day, updated and cute-ified and ready for the new generation of women whose schedules are too packed full with boot camps and yoga ballet to put in a few weeks (or months… or years) of enthusiasm, stickers, and mop-ups. We passed it by – we’ve got better ways to spend 4 hours than locked in the bathroom or kitchen with dolls and an angry toddler.
08.03.07
Niccolo Machiavelli’s innocence
People at work paused and looked at me strangely when they came to my office and saw Machiavelli on my desk. I shrugged and smiled, but the damage was done. They made strange jokes about my rising the ranks and being too intellectual for my job. What could I say? I would really sound the fascist if I argued that Nic (do you think his friends called him Nic…?) isn’t really that bad. So he has a few choice and bloody examples, but for the most part warns against those routes. Pop-culture mythology suggests a “machiavellian” ruler is one who’ll stop at nothing to keep his power, who’ll do anything, who’ll bisect any minister if it will send a message to the people. The Machiavellian listens to the devil, after all.
I’ve learned otherwise. The Machiavellian criticizes the Pope and Church and its model of rulership, considers religion a valuable tool both for shoring up power and for motivating people. I’m sure the Pope thought Nic was listening to the devil when he read that section of the book. The Machiavellian doesn’t fall for flattery, stands on his own two feet without the help of others, knows when to ask for and take advice, pays discrete attention to the world, the changes of fortune and the strengths and weaknesses of his subjects and of his enemies. He makes choices drawn from keen observance of his surroundings. In many ways, he is a political warrior.
The Machiavellian, if you could give such a name to Nic’s ideal ruler, is popular because of an appearance of goodness, devoutness, and affection for his people, nobles, and armies. He employs thoughtful benefits and equally well-thought-out punishments, is predictable to his people and unpredictable to his enemies. He is fair, just, and measures all actions against the health of his dominion. He will do what must be done to save his domain from ruin, even if that means cruel actions, but always ensure a minister does the dirty work. He is half pirate captain, accepting no mutiny, and half knight, inspired by ideals.
Some people say Niccolo Machiavelli displayed shocking pragmatism. His tell-it-like-it-is style is unhampered by conventional morality or ethics. In this he is very modern, and his notes on politics show that the same practises which, though decried by the liberal media, are employed by our own politicians in a consistent mirror of historical politics.
But what is not modern, is the innocence and optimism in his words. He believes the populace will never be deceived by evil or incompetent men. He argues that the mob is thoughtful, knowledgeable, and discerning. He argues that the people will always see through the ruse.
Oh if only he could see a history of the 20th century. If only he could see Fox News. Would he still have faith in the people, upon seeing the results of democracy and the multimedia mass opiate? What would he think of the people who text their lives away?
It was his innocence that marked him as a man of the Renaissance, his trust in (Italian) humanity, his sentimentality about his homeland and his honest faith that the good in mankind will win out (especially if man takes matters from God’s hands, into his own).
