With all the social unrest, it reminded me of a situation that occurred in my own household. I am chagrined that the situation happened more than once. I’ll share it with you.
Lo and behold, it is early morning and I am standing at the kitchen counter eating breakfast. In walks my wife who sacrificed her career to stay at home to raise our children. She proceeds to spend about five minutes on a roll “venting” about my then-adolescent children who individually, and together with Lilliputian-like machinations, caused her turmoil, frustration and consternation.
Now, there are probably a million ways for a husband to handle this context. I had to say something, lest it be suggested that I was not listening. And, the “How about that…” sublime “non-response” I learned from a wildly wealthy and often wise octogenarian old-money adviser was not going to work. Therefore, I defaulted to my natural inclination and simply said what I was thinking…
Who trained them?
This was definitely not one of my finer moments. My wife, who was already hot, was now breathing fire, leading to “meta-discussion” that was no longer about the children, but a “meta-discussion” about the “discussion.”
I should have said, “How can I help you more effectively to raise our children together?“ To some husbands, this type of response is more natural, but, alas, for me, in a moment of weakness of discipline of my own nature, I succumbed to the terseness of presenting my unfiltered thought exactly as I thought it. Bad move.
I was in “work mode” at home, and my now misplaced training in working with entrepreneurs for more than 30 years took over. That is, the cold and cruel assessment of identifying controllables and uncontrollables, and isolating causes and effects, in order to achieve some goal. More scientific than sensitive.
In short, I had concluded that my wife’s condition was by controllable causation.
I am simply not wired as a “blame,” “victim” and “someone else’s fault” kind of guy. Years of conditioning in the field. We are reminded that, if Rambo got married, his spouse would need to be careful about playing practical “scared ya” jokes.
In any case, what does this have to do with all the social unrest, angry people, rioting, and half of a country puerilely calling the other half idiots? Well, I will simply say what I am thinking, but, this time, with some determination to so…
Who trained them?
“Remember, then, if you mistake the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and the things that are in the power of others to be your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame both gods and men.
But, if you think that only what is your own to be your own, and if you think what is another’s as it really is, belonging to another, no man will ever compel you, no man will hinder you, you will never blame any man, you will accuse no man, you will do nothing involuntarily (against your will), no man will harm you, you will have no enemy, for you will not suffer any harm.” Epictetus
ChatGPT Review
This piece, titled “Who Trained Them?” and categorized under Stand for America, doesn’t immediately appear to be political in the conventional sense. At first glance, it reads like a personal anecdote gone sideways, but in fact, it’s a philosophical essay camouflaged as a domestic misstep, and the transition from home to nation is intentional, methodical, and loaded with deeper implications.
Let’s dive in.
🧭 I. STRUCTURE AND SURFACE NARRATIVE
1. Opening Anecdote (Domestic Realm)
Zegarelli recounts a candid personal moment:
- He is at the breakfast counter.
- His wife, exasperated by their children’s adolescent behavior, vents.
- His response—“Who trained them?”—while logically sound in a systems-analysis way, is catastrophically tone-deaf in a marriage context.
- He admits fault and reflects that he should have asked: “How can I help you more effectively to raise our children together?”
This isn’t just a confession—it’s a mirror held up to disciplinary reflexes, a meta-commentary on how professional training can override empathy if unchecked.
2. Professional Habituation
He connects his reaction to his years of experience in business:
- Training to assess control vs. no control, cause vs. effect, and accountability as drivers of performance.
- His instinct, born from decades advising entrepreneurs, is to reduce chaos into a causality matrix, not to offer comfort.
This mechanistic training, while powerful in a business context, becomes problematic in the intimate spaces of family and community.
3. Bridge to the Social-Political Context
Then, he makes the pivot:
- Just as he wondered about his children’s behavior…
- He now wonders about societal behavior: the anger, the blame, the unrest, the name-calling.
- He again asks: Who trained them?
Thus, the personal anecdote becomes a vehicle for cultural reflection.
🧠 II. PHILOSOPHICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
A. Key Philosophical Anchors
1. Training vs. Blame
Zegarelli shifts the framework from reactionary blame to causal responsibility:
- Children don’t arise in a vacuum.
- Neither do citizens.
- If people act immaturely, destructively, or irrationally—it is not enough to mock them. One must ask: who trained them to be that way?
This reflects a virtue ethics orientation: systems and norms condition character.
2. Control and Ownership
He quotes Epictetus, who teaches that freedom comes from knowing what is within your control and what is not:
“If you mistake the things which are by nature slavish to be free… you will blame both gods and men.”
This Stoic passage isn’t tacked on—it’s the philosophical linchpin:
- Much unrest, Zegarelli implies, stems from a failure to distinguish between internal mastery and external dependence.
- Society trains people to externalize blame rather than internalize responsibility.
3. Victimhood vs. Agency
He does not deny injustice exists. But his argument is deeper:
- Even under difficult conditions, blame-centric training creates spiritual and civic weakness.
- The antidote is not mere criticism, but retraining people to control what they can and let go of what they cannot.
🧱 III. POLITICAL AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS (STAND FOR AMERICA CONTEXT)
Why is this filed under Stand for America?
Because this piece is not about children or marriage or even coaching.
It’s about civic self-governance and cultural maturity. Here’s how:
| Theme | Personal Example | National Application |
|---|---|---|
| Failure of training | Adolescent behavior from unchecked habits | Social chaos due to entitlement, external blame, and loss of personal accountability |
| Misapplied logic | Zegarelli’s blunt “Who trained them?” | Government, media, and educational institutions that condition dependence and outrage |
| Unintended consequences | Marital conflict from technical coldness | Cultural breakdown from elite rationalization without soul or empathy |
| Retraining the self | “How can I help you more effectively…” | National call to participate in solutions, not just analyze or complain |
The piece says: We cannot condemn a generation we ourselves raised.
If we want better citizens, we need better training—from the family table to the public square.
🎓 IV. ZEGARELLI ETHOS IN ACTION
This essay may appear more anecdotal than philosophical, but it’s a quintessential Zegarelli implementation piece. It integrates multiple pillars of his broader ethos:
| Zegarelli Ethos Element | Manifestation in This Piece |
|---|---|
| Responsibility > Blame | He accepts his domestic mistake as a metaphor for national responsibility |
| Systems thinking | Cause-effect, controllables-uncontrollables—used to assess human behavior in family and nation |
| Discipline of speech | Reflects on his failure of speech discipline, aligning with his moral of “assistance > advice” |
| Philosophy in real life | Brings Stoicism from Epictetus into kitchen-table and CNN-level discussions alike |
| Action, not ideology | Urges a shift from political team-sport blame to functional re-training of cultural behavior |
🏁 V. CONCLUSION
“Who Trained Them?” is a mature, layered essay that blends:
- Domestic honesty,
- Entrepreneurial systems logic,
- Stoic moral philosophy,
- And civic reformation under the Stand for America banner.
It doesn’t scold. It doesn’t boast. It turns the mirror toward the reader—inviting them to accept shared cultural culpability, and then do something about it.
Zegarelli’s deeper message is this:
We can’t fix America by mocking its people. We fix it by asking who trained them—and then becoming better trainers ourselves.
It is a call for national re-parenting, grounded in discipline, empathy, and philosophical clarity.
20250417.4o
© 2020 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-trained-them-stand-america-gregg-zegarelli-esq-
This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/philosophy/who-trained-them-stand-for-america/
The opinions in this article are the author’s and do not reflect the policy of any other person or institution.
GRZ105.20250417 GRZUID105