9/9/2009 - Wednesday

• 9/9/2009 11:55:47 PMDirty Clothes and Subtle DisobediencePut simply, Michael has poor hygiene.  I don't believe that cleanliness is something that was stressed in the orphanage.  When we visited the Cheboksary Children's home, it was a clean facility and for the most part the people there appeared clean.  I don't recall anyone there with noticeably dirty clothing or skin.  But then again, that was not something I was looking for when I was there.
  
  One of the things we discovered immediately after arriving in Moscow was that the facility where we took our so-called "medical exam", did not have adequate rest room facilities.  I could write a whole book on the things I observed at that place.  Of course the adequacy of the facilities is nothing more than my opinion as compared with what is available at any public building here in the United States.  Looking back at our trip now, I wish I would have taken a photo of the rest room.  
  
  The door to the room was locked and you had to ask someone to unlock it for you should you need to use it.  The toilet had no seat and the sink had no soap.  Used toilet paper was meant to be thrown in the open waste basket and not down the toilet as there was not enough vacuum, water, or flushing power to make it go down.  Perhaps the real reason for not putting paper in the bowl was that there was not enough bacteria in the system to break down the paper once it was flushed.  I don't know.  All I can say is that the room stunk in the worst kind of way.  It was almost as if the hospital/clinic had thought about putting in rest room plumbing after they had designed and built the facility.  
  
  For Michael, this would not have been a problem.  He would simply do the normal and natural thing - don't wipe.  The problem of having dirty hands is then avoided even though a different problem has been created... but no one can "see" that problem even though you might detect the smell.  But then again, smells could come from anywhere.  Couldn't they...?  Furthermore, since cause and effect are unrelated scientific principles of the universe, having an itchy red butt is simply nothing more than a regularly occurring and common skin problem that everyone learns to live with.  Don't they...?
  
  But I digress.  This story is not about butts or Russian bathrooms but about dirty clothes and associated mind games.  While we were in Russia, I observed several people who clearly did not change their clothes or bathe on a regular basis.  Perhaps I should say - regular enough for me.  I can certainly understand the repeated wearing of some articles of clothing.  Though there may be some articles that can be worn more than others - all must be changed eventually.  For example, (in my opinion) socks and underwear should be changed daily.  Sometimes if it is very cold (like the dead of winter in Wisconsin), you might choose to wear wool socks over cotton socks to keep your feet warm.  The wool socks may not need to be changed every day depending on what you're doing but eventually, they will need to be changed.
  
  As with many other things in Michael's life, the regular changing of his clothes is a tool he will sometimes use to "gain control" in his life.  I don't fully understand his twisted reasoning in this but in his mind, doing the opposite of what he is told or what he knows to be right, correct, or expected - is one way that he convinces himself that he is still the master of his own domain.  Sometimes his disobedience is blatant while other times it is more subtle.  Here is an example of subtle disobedience:
  
  Michael has horrible breath due to his rotten, multi-colored teeth.  He knows this as does everyone else in the house.  Grandma's dog also knows it and doesn't like it when Michael puts his face near his.  Some people are "mouth breathers" while others breath through their nose.  Michael is a "nose breather" - that is unless he has some kind of crazy thought in his head and he has decided that making you sick and angry might be an enjoyable activity for the moment.  At that time, he will move in close and ask you what you're doing and then begin to breath on your face.  He knows that you will not like it and have asked him repeatedly in the past to not do that.  This is the calibur of games that Michael likes to play.
  
  As of this morning, Michael has been wearing the same black socks, green shorts, and red t-shirt for about 5 days.  He changes his underwear and washes them by hand every day because of previous butt wiping compliance issues of the past.  Michael came down stairs this morning and Peggy asked him, "how many days have you been wearing those clothes?"  Michael gave the standard answer, "I don't know".  In reality he probably didn't know the exact number, but he was well aware that it had been a while since he put on clean clothes.
  
  "I didn't say anything to you because I wanted to see if you would choose to change your clothes.", said Peggy.  "Now go back up stairs and put on some clean clothes."  Peggy did not give him any wiggle room on this and gave him a direct and very specific command.  She did not ask him "why" he hasn't changed his clothes but made a point of telling him that she was aware of it and it should be corrected immediately.
  
  Michael goes back upstairs and takes a long time in his room picking out clothing.  He comes back down with a nearly exact set of clothing.  Black socks, very similar green shorts, and a very similar red t-shirt.  His clean clothing is so similar to his dirty clothing that if you were not paying attention, you would not have noticed they were different.  The question to ask is, "why did he put on nearly identical clothing?"
  
  Dad: "What are you doing?"
  Michael:  "Mom told me to change my clothes."
  Dad: "Why did you pick out almost the exact same clothes?"
  Michael: "I like red and green"
  Dad: "Don't you like variety?  Do you want me to only buy you black socks, green shorts, and red t-shirts?"
  Michael: "No"
  Dad: "Then why did you choose to change into black socks, green shorts, and a red t-shirt?"
  
  Michael his this certain facial expression he makes when you've trapped him in a mind game.  It is a sort of smirk/half smile where his cheeks get round and chubby.  He then purses his lips in what I call the "kissy face".  He moves his lips in and out in a semi-nervous kind of way.  It is a dead give away that something crazy is going on in his mind.  To me, this game has no point but to him - it is of great significance that he successfully pulls "a fast one".  To get a trick or deception of some sort past mom and dad is like "a win".  It doesn't matter if it is big or small.
  
  Back to our question: "Why did you choose to change into black socks, green shorts, and a red t-shirt"?
  
  Michael: silent, staring, smirking, kissy-facing.
  Dad: Well?
  Michael: I like it.
  Dad: You like what?
  Michael: I like red and green.
  
  This went around and around a few times so I'll just cut to the chase.  Michael ultimately admitted that he purposely chose to wear nearly identical clothing because he thought that would be a good way to irritate mom and cause some confusion about whether or not he actually changed his clothing.  Michael definitely did not see what was coming next.  Peggy sent him upstairs to put on his dirty clothes back on.  At this point, he is to wear them indefinitely.  Further more, he is also required to keep wearing the same underwear and not to comb his hair.  I'm not sure how far to go with this and whether to have him avoid bathing and tooth brushing as well.  
  
  Our goal is this: we will either take his tool away, or turn it to our advantage.  Michael has decided to become "the stinky kid" for reasons of his own.  We are going to allow him to be "the stinky kid" for reasons of our own.  When all is said and done, I will once again ask him - "How did that work out for you?"
  
  Please Lord, let him learn something from this.

9/6/2009 - Sunday

• 9/6/2009 8:49:50 PMDogs and DoughnutsWhat do Dogs and Doughnuts have in common?  Well for starters, the desire for each can be a kind of proving ground to help expose some inconsistent behavior.  I bet you didn't see that coming.
  
  As I mentioned previously, our dog of 9+ years died.  Yesterday we got a new dog.  Today is Sunday.  Sometime during church, I got an idea of stopping at the store bakery and picking up some doughnuts.  Reading the news paper, drinking some fresh brewed coffee, playing with a new puppy, taking a nap on the couch - these are all great Sunday afternoon activities.  Nothing goes better with them then eating a nice fresh doughnut.
  
  I made up my mind and after church we headed over to the Piggly Wiggly and picked up a dozen.  Since there are six of us in the house, quick math tells me that we will each get approximately two.  Although Michael and Ellie are young, they will likely have to wait to eat their second doughnuts.  Since Michael has rotten black, brown, green, and red teeth - he may not get a second doughnut.  We'll have to see how things work out.
  
  We come home and each have some doughnuts.  I eat my two right away because my mom always told me that when I got my own house I could do whatever I wanted - which I am doing.  Ellie has one.  Michael has one.  These are not small doughnuts.  They are large custard filled chocolate covered long-johns.  Very nummy, and very very sweet.
  
  Sometime later in the afternoon, Ellie asks for her second doughnut.  "Sure", I say.  Michael sits very quietly and watches Ellie - studying her doughnut.  He doesn't say a thing.  I know Michael would like to have his second doughnut so I ask him, "Is there something you would like to ask me?".
  
  "Can I have my second doughnut?", he asks.  "Sure", I say.
  
  As he goes into the kitchen, I asked him, "So you wanted another doughnut and you asked me straight out with no lies, tricks, or deceit.  How did that work out for you?.  "Very good", he responds.
  
  Later in the afternoon, I am outside working on the porch roof.  Michael and Ellie have been given the task of watching the dog so that he doesn't get into trouble.  They watch him by playing with him and keeping him occupied.  Later in the evening, Peggy comes in to get a drink of water and stops for a moment to pet and play with the dog.  
  
  Michael was not playing with the dog at that moment, but as soon as he saw Peggy playing with the dog, he wanted her to play with the dog in the way that HE wanted - with a ball.  This is not what she wanted to do nor how she wanted to give attention to the dog.  Michael started to shake the ball because it has a bell inside and makes a cute little jingle sound.  Peggy firmly told Michael in clear and certain terms, "NO".  "I'm playing with the dog now.  I don't want to play with the ball."
  
  Michael stood there quietly for a moment watching the Mom and the dog.  Then he dropped the jingly ball on the ground at his feet and distracted the dog from playing with Peggy.
  
  "Why did you do that?", asked Peggy.  "Why did you drop the ball at your feet right in front of the dog right after I told you not to do that?  I am playing with the dog.  Not you."
  
  His answer?  "Because I wanted to play with the dog and I knew it would irritate you."
  
  So here is the comparison I'm making:
  - Michael wanted a doughnut but didn't ask me for one because he was certain I would say no.  I don't know for sure but I believe he may have considered acquiring the doughnut at a later time through some trickery or other means.  I provided a way for him to easily get a one without any deceitful tactics and it worked out well for him.
  
  On the other hand
  
  - Michael had been playing with the dog most of the day but wanted to all the more when he saw Mom playing with the dog.  When he was told explicitly "NO" and to back off, he made a point of misbehaving and disobeying.
  
  In both cases, he wanted something.  In one case (the doughnuts), he didn't ask about what he wanted - but I offered.  In the other case (the dog) he was explicitly told "NO" which then became the trigger point for incorrect behavior.
  
  This type of scenario plays itself out repeatedly and in many different ways in our house.  One thing that always comes out though is that Michael definitely doesn't like being told what to do.  (read that as control).  He doesn't like being told to change his clothes, comb his hair, wipe his butt, brush his teeth and especially "No".

9/5/2009 - Saturday

• 9/5/2009 10:21:55 PMLying about CornHow does a person lie about corn or tell a lie that involves corn?  Creatively - that's how.  In case it was never mentioned before, Michael is one of the nosiest and controlling people I have ever met.  It just gnaws at him to not know what is going on.  
  
  Here is the story - It is late Saturday evening and I am standing at the grill cooking hamburgers.  We had a very busy day that began early in the morning.  We drove to a small town south of Steven's Point to get a dog, then we drove to Grandma's house and helped Great-Grandma move in, then we came home and worked on building a roof over our front porch.  We're all very tired and hungry and now I'm cooking burgers on the grill.
  
  Seemingly out of nowhere, Michael comes running up to me, "Hey Dad! Dad!"  This is clearly a sign of something foul in progress - I just don't know what.  The house is not on fire, no one is dead, I didn't hear any loud noises or explosions, there is no sound of crying to be heard and I am in no mood for any Michael shenanigans so I holler out, "whatever it is, the answer is NO".  Michael stops dead in his tracks and looks dejected.  WhoooHoo!  I don't know what that was about but it feels like a win for Dad!
  
  Now, I'm sure you're as confused as I was about what just happened.  Let's peal back the covers of this incident and take a look inside the world of Michael.
  
  My oldest son has joined a basketball team and he has been told to get himself in shape for the year.  He has been given a list of some exercises that he will be drilled on and one of them is running a mile.  Sometime while I was standing at the grill cooking burgers, Mom and James decide to get in the car and drive down the road to measure the approximate distance of a mile so that James knows how far to run and he can time himself.  I had no prior knowledge that they were going to do this and I was even not aware that they had gotten in the car and drove off.
  
  But somebody else was...  Someone saw them drive off and didn't know where they were going...  Someone was concerned that they might be missing out on something...
  
  After Mom and James returned, Peggy commented to Michael, "I saw you come running across the yard as we drove off and then turn around and go running back towards Dad.  Why did you do that?"
  
  Michael's response was classic.  He said, "I wanted to tell Dad that if he wanted, he could go and look at the corn in the garden and see if it was ready to pick, he could".
  
  We are not having corn for dinner tonight but that doesn't matter.  In the world of Michael, leaving flaming burgers on the grill to go off and contemplate corn growth is nothing unusual.  In fact, every I time I grill burgers - my mind is on corn, or beans, or cats playing in the yard, or something else - just like his.
  
  I said to him, "Why was it so important for you to tell me that?  Why did you come hollering across the yard Dad! Dad!"?  "It wasn't important", said Michael.   "Why did you do it then?", I asked.  "I don't know", he said.
  
  "Did you want to ask Dad where I was going?", asked Mom.  "No." said Michael.
  
  We went back and forth with Michael on this issue and cut him off at every lying turn.  That was not a deterrent to him as he kept changing his story.  It was not until we explained how it was that we were certain that he came back to the grill to ask me where Mom was going along with all the details and clues that grudgingly admitted that this was the information he was actually after.  Michael responded, "... well that was part of it."
  
  "Part of it? Really?", I said.  "What was the 'other part'?"  
  
  This is another classic Michael-ism.  When he is caught doing something, anything and you reveal to him the real reason or motivation for his action and explain how it is that you know it, he always tells you that you are only partly correct in your assessment.  In fact, your assessment of the reasoning for his actions is always the "lesser" part of a two part reason.
  
  "What is the other part?", I repeated.  "There is no other part", he responded.  "Why did you tell me there was another part?", I asked.  "I don't know", he said.

9/1/2009 - Tuesday

• 9/1/2009 7:28:28 AMMichael verses Mercury MarineRecently in our area, Mercury Marine - the manufacturers of outboard motors - has contemplated shutting down its facility in Fond du Lac, WI.  I don't know all of the details or the company's reason for this but from what I understand, the decision has its roots in the economy and is a cost and financial based decision.  They are considering relocating the production to some place in Oklahoma.
  
  Apparently, Mercury Marine was in the process of negotiating some kind of a contract deal with the employees and their union to keep the production facility located in Fond du Lac.  Some kind of deal was placed on the table and the Union organized a vote.  The deadline for giving the company a final response was midnight on August 29th.  After that time, the offer given to the employees would no longer be valid and Mercury would proceed with some other plan.
  
  Earlier in the week, the employees "overwhelmingly" voted "NO" to the deal.  I don't know what the exact count was because as far as I know, the tally was not published.  The union said that the people voted against the new contract proposal which effectively sealed their fate - unemployment.
  
  Over the next few days, some employees who were unhappy with the result (those who probably voted "YES") asked for a re-vote.  I'm not certain exactly what the union said but the employees were led to believe that "union bylaws forbid a second vote".  Only at the last minute did they discover that what they were told was incorrect and there was no such bylaw.  They scrambled to get a second vote together but for whatever reason, enough people didn't show up or didn't show up in time or didn't finish the vote and when it was done, the deadline came and went.
  
  This morning on the radio, I heard one of the employees saying how angry they were - both at the union and also Mercury Marine.  I can understand the anger towards the union in the fact that the right to have a second vote was misrepresented if not a complete lie.  However I do have somewhat of an issue with the anger towards Mercury Marine.  They set a deadline which at the time given, gave the employees and union enough time to think about and make a decision.  At the time of the first vote, the people spoke their mind and that was that.  Now, some people are having a problem with Mercury's deadline.  My question is, "what is the point of having a deadline if it doesn't mean what it says it means"?  The idea is that you have until some date to make your decision and after that, I will make a decision.  Period.  Perhaps people will say this was unfair because the employees "didn't really have a choice" because neither of the options presented were favorable.  I guess I would respond that keeping one's job is favorable.
  
  Does that sound cold?  Is Mercury wrong for doing what they said they would do?  I understand that there are some very upset and angry people who are potentially going to be unemployed very shortly, but let's not forget that they did already vote on this issue.  There may have been some dissension within but as a unionized group, they spoke with their collective voice.  What they wanted was a re-vote but with a different outcome.  What they wanted was an endless amount of time and patience on behalf of Mercury while they worked things out.
  
  Why am I telling this story?  Because it is a story of decisions and the consequences that follow.
  
  So this morning, I'm in the kitchen making my lunch for work.  Michael comes down and asks what I had for breakfast.  "I didn't eat breakfast yet.  I ran out of time", I said.  As I stood and thought about it, I decided to eat a bagel so that I had something in my stomach.  A few moments later, Michael comes back into the kitchen, sees me eating the bagel and asks, "Can I have some cereal?".  "Sure", I reply.
  
  Michael goes into the cupboard and begins to look over the choices.  "Can I have some of the new cereal or do I have to eat the old stuff first"?  This is a dumb question because he already knows the answer to it.  He doesn't like the previously established answer and he is asking hoping that I will produce a different response.  At our house, we have this crazy rule of eating the old cereal first, and then opening the new cereal.  He and I have had this discussion many times.
  
  "Well all I like is the Rice Krispies", Michael exclaims.  "Then eat the Rice Krispies", I respond.  Michael closes the cupboard and goes back into the dining room to sit down.  He curls up on a chair, covers up with his blanket, and begins to stare out the window.
  
  "What are you doing?", I ask.  "I thought you were going to have some cereal."  Michael gives me a blank stare.  "It's not fair that someone already opened the new cereal", he explains.  "Who are you to tell me what is fair and not fair?", I ask.  "Is Michael going to teach Mom and Dad how to run the house and what is fair and what isn't?", I ask.
  
  In case you're not following along, here is what is going on - Michael doesn't want the old Rice Krispies, he wants the new box of Corn Pops.  It is a low sugar vs lots of sugar kind of thing.  My response to him has now set the tone for any further discussion on the topic and Michael doesn't like it.  He also doesn't like being on the bottom of the authority chain.  He has decided to not eat until after I leave for work.  Then he will attempt to reacquire what he wants through some other means.
  
  "Do you know that when I go and say good-bye to mom, I'm going to explain to her what you're up to?  You have a choice to make here."  
  Here are the choices I gave him:
  1. go back in the kitchen and eat a bowl of Rice Krispies
  2. skip breakfast
  3. wait until Mom gets up and ask her the same question or for something else and face the consequences
  
  Now at out house, anytime you play mom and dad against each other it is considered a Federal Crime.  You should never ask one of them a question and if you don't like the answer they give you - go ask the other one without disclosing that you have already received an answer on the issue.  In this case, Michael saw me eating a bagel but chose to ask for cereal but he didn't like the restrictions on the cereal so now he is plotting his next move.
  
  What Michael always fails to realize is that Mom and Dad talk.  I said to Michael, "what do you thing is going to happen when you ask Mom for something else or for new cereal and she knows you have already asked me about it and I told you to eat the older stuff first?  Do you want to face the consequences that will follow?".  Michael thought about it for a moment and got up and began to look through the refrigerator for something else.
  
  "What are you doing now?", I ask.  "I'm looking for something to eat", he said.  "That is not one of the choices I gave you", I said.  This story exposes more of Michael's reasoning.  I gave him three options to choose from and he didn't like any of them so he simply does what he frequently does - introduce another option and chooses that.  This is commonly referred to as, "whatever I want".
  
  Am I being too cold and analytical about this?  Have I made a big deal out of nothing?  Could I have just simply let him have something else to eat?  Perhaps.  However, the old cereal is not going away anytime soon and this behavior will not help it disappear either.
  
  If this was just simply one isolated incident, it probably wouldn't have happened.  However Michael's standard operating procedure is one of deception and misdirection.  In 99.9% of the things he does, there is always an element of him concealing what he is up to.  
  
  Is not wanting Rice Krispies a crime?  No - certainly not.  But neither is the requirement of eating the older cereal first.  Michael's problem stems from the imposed authority structure in our home and his hatred of being told what to do.  This is found on page 5 of your Orphan Attachment Disorder handbook.
  
  I asked Michael (as I often do), "why did you just do that?".  All I get is the long blank zero neurological activity stare.  I believe that he honestly doesn't know.  He only knows that he wants something and whatever it is always takes precedent over obeying or following instruction.  Michael always chooses his desires first and it seldom works out for him.  That doesn't matter because in his own words, "one time it might work out."  He is willing to try as many times as necessary for that "one time" when he gets what he wants.
  
  Michael thought that disobeying - either by going and asking Mom later, or just simply going after something different, would somehow result in a more favorable outcome.  It kind of reminds me of the definition of insanity: repeat the same process over and over and hope for a different result.  
  
  - Why did the employees of Mercury Marine vote to not accept the deal offered?  
  - Did they think that by saying "NO", they would get to keep their jobs anyway or that nothing would happen?
  - Did they think that the passing of the deadline was inconsequential and that the offer would stand forever?  
  - Why didn't Michael just eat the Rice Krispies so that he could get to the new cereal sooner?
  - Why did Michael think that asking Mom (who talks to Dad) would result in a different outcome?
  - Why did Michael create his own 4th option and just do that despite repeated discussions about the consequences of such behavior?
  
  This isn't about Michael not being able to "learn".  He can learn.  It is about structure, order, discipline, submission, authority, and behavior.  It is about weighing it against personal desire and the consequences of our decisions.
  
  Our thoughts become our words.
  Our words become actions which then become habits.
  Our habits become our character and this becomes our destiny.
  
  Lord - help us take every thought captive.