Here is one of the most idiotic events that parents these days can accomplish: hacking several times into a school computer system to change their kids' grades. This woman, Catherine Venusto, 45, did exactly that and got caught.
What irks me most is not that she did it, but that officials had this to say:
"State police say Venusto admitted changing the grades, saying she thought her actions were unethical but not illegal."
(http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jul/19/no-headline---pa--mom_hacks_school126/)
How can a person living in North America, who is presumably educated NOT know that this activity is illegal? How can something be unethcial yet not illegal in this context?
But what comes out further is this outrage:
"State police discovered Venusto used Wright's username and password 110 times to access the district's online grading system, according to the District Attorney's office. Venusto also allegedly accessed nine other faculty members' email accounts without permission, and accessed the human resources "H-drive" to view "thousands of files associated with district policy, contract information, employee reports and personnel issues.""
(http://news.yahoo.com/mom-arrested-hacking-school-computers-change-kids-grades-170842180--abc-news-topstories.html)
To do this over 100 times is not just an "unethical" mistake, its a federal crime and is as wrong as if she had hacked into bank accounts, medical files or the IRS system. This shows that she had forethought and knew exactly what she was doing. What ever happened to talking with the teachers? And if her kid got a 98, why not be satisfied with that, since it beats out practically 85% of the rest of the class.
This example of bad parenting is a prime reason we have to get back to educating people (kids) on the basics and on the difference between right and wrong.
This woman is so stupid, that I think her computer priviledges should be revoked indefinitely. Which is what will happen since she faces up to 42 years in prison and a fine of up to $90,000 if convicted.
Since she had practically admitted her wrong-doing, this is nearly a certainty.
C'mon lady, wise up. Your helicopter parenting days are over, thank goodness. We don't want you to set any more bad examples for your kids or any other kids.
And let this be a lesson in bad parenting and the difference between right and wrong. If something feels unethical, it usually is illegal as well.
PS to the district supervisor of this school system: next time, change your password whenever someone leaves their employment who had access to your computer system. Better yet, never hire a parent who has kids in your district for a position with access to computers, ever. It would be too tempting for today's helicopter parents.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Occupy Wall Street's Mistakes
Since the early 1990s, I have maintained that the current economy is based on 'un-earned' income for the wealthy and hard work for the rest. "Un-earned" income is income that is derived, not by the sweat of one's brows or by producing tangible goods and services, but on interest, dividends and other payments based largely on other people's work.
The current world-wide movement that started out as "Occupy Wall Street" is attempting to redress that situation by blockading bridges, camping out in parks and protesting in many ways against this economy without really having any focus. This is the first mistake that the Occupy movement has made.
Without focusing their efforts on changing the credit and debt-based ecomony (which is basically what 'un-earned' income amounts to), they are missing the mark and striking out at nothing in particular, just displaying a sense of unease with no goals.
This makes the movement an easy target for ridicule. Many people see the protesters as being the 21st century equivalents of hippies; people who would rather get stoned than working for a living.
Mistake number two is found in the way that they are lobbying for change. Instead of paying attention to the past 40 years of financial market history and lobbying their elected government officials during that time, they do the "peacenik" protest dance. Protesting will not change a thing unless they serve up solutions to the problem.
Which brings us back to mistake number one. If they do not have a clear focus on what needs to be changed, they will not be able to find solutions. Its a tautology, a circle dance with no end in sight.
Here is my proposal for change.
Find something to fix within the world financial market, look at options how to make the economy more equitable for the working people, then lobby governments to change the rules along those lines. Make sure that what you want to fix is doable and will result in a better re-distribution of wealth without violent revolution.
In this way, the Occupy Wall Street movement will gain some credibility and probably effect real change.
The only big problem I see now is that most of the protesters would like to be at the top themselves in exactly the same way as the very people they are protesting against. This makes many of them hypocrites.
So here is a challenge for all you protesters: find what needs to be fixed, focus your efforts on changing those rules and then come back to us. If your solutions are viable, then your protests will have merit.
At the rate you're going now, the only people you will impress is yourselves. The rest of us will find better ways to change the way the financial system works.
The current world-wide movement that started out as "Occupy Wall Street" is attempting to redress that situation by blockading bridges, camping out in parks and protesting in many ways against this economy without really having any focus. This is the first mistake that the Occupy movement has made.
Without focusing their efforts on changing the credit and debt-based ecomony (which is basically what 'un-earned' income amounts to), they are missing the mark and striking out at nothing in particular, just displaying a sense of unease with no goals.
This makes the movement an easy target for ridicule. Many people see the protesters as being the 21st century equivalents of hippies; people who would rather get stoned than working for a living.
Mistake number two is found in the way that they are lobbying for change. Instead of paying attention to the past 40 years of financial market history and lobbying their elected government officials during that time, they do the "peacenik" protest dance. Protesting will not change a thing unless they serve up solutions to the problem.
Which brings us back to mistake number one. If they do not have a clear focus on what needs to be changed, they will not be able to find solutions. Its a tautology, a circle dance with no end in sight.
Here is my proposal for change.
Find something to fix within the world financial market, look at options how to make the economy more equitable for the working people, then lobby governments to change the rules along those lines. Make sure that what you want to fix is doable and will result in a better re-distribution of wealth without violent revolution.
In this way, the Occupy Wall Street movement will gain some credibility and probably effect real change.
The only big problem I see now is that most of the protesters would like to be at the top themselves in exactly the same way as the very people they are protesting against. This makes many of them hypocrites.
So here is a challenge for all you protesters: find what needs to be fixed, focus your efforts on changing those rules and then come back to us. If your solutions are viable, then your protests will have merit.
At the rate you're going now, the only people you will impress is yourselves. The rest of us will find better ways to change the way the financial system works.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
vancouver sore losers
I would like to congratulate all those parents who raised the sore losers now living in Vancouver for a job "well done". I was on the same streets which were the scene of the riots yesterday, just hours before the final game of the Stanley Cup started and I will tell you that virtually all of the people waiting in lines to enter the bars were in their twenties and thirties.
Watching the live video footage of what transpired showed that nearly all of the rioters were in the same age group. No, I will amend that. ALL of the rioters were in that age group.
I've said it before on this blog and I will say it again; the parents of MY generation generally blew it on discipline and establishing a sense of right and wrong in a sizeable majority of their kids. Too many were molly-codelled and spoiled and raised to expect that the world owed them a living, that they could take what they wanted without working for it (which amounts to the same thing), that violence solves problems.
But this was no "problem" to be solved. It was a game and in games you have winners and losers. While I feel for the fans who were not part of the riots, I do not feel at all for those who looted and rioted. They do not understand that the shop owners and owners of the vehicles which were destroyed lost far more than a game. They lost property and perhaps their livelihoods after these hooligans smashed into their stores and burned their vehicles.
The police cars will be replaced and probably the civilian vehicles which were also destroyed. But what about the lost wages for the people who cannot return to work because the stores they work at either no longer exist or were heavily looted, like the Bay? Did the rioters think about them?
No.
Like many of their generation (I call Generation "ME FIRST"), they saw an opportunity to take what they wanted and vandalise for the sake of vandalizing without regard to consequences.
So, to all those parents who raised such scum, congratulations. Your "New Age" politically-correct methods of raising kids without due regard to the well-being of others has succeeded. Your kids are now at the top of the heap for those most likely to dis-respect others in the pursuit of their own greedy little agendas of improving their self esteem and their pocketbooks.
Lets hope that the next generation of parents doesn't make the same mistakes.
Watching the live video footage of what transpired showed that nearly all of the rioters were in the same age group. No, I will amend that. ALL of the rioters were in that age group.
I've said it before on this blog and I will say it again; the parents of MY generation generally blew it on discipline and establishing a sense of right and wrong in a sizeable majority of their kids. Too many were molly-codelled and spoiled and raised to expect that the world owed them a living, that they could take what they wanted without working for it (which amounts to the same thing), that violence solves problems.
But this was no "problem" to be solved. It was a game and in games you have winners and losers. While I feel for the fans who were not part of the riots, I do not feel at all for those who looted and rioted. They do not understand that the shop owners and owners of the vehicles which were destroyed lost far more than a game. They lost property and perhaps their livelihoods after these hooligans smashed into their stores and burned their vehicles.
The police cars will be replaced and probably the civilian vehicles which were also destroyed. But what about the lost wages for the people who cannot return to work because the stores they work at either no longer exist or were heavily looted, like the Bay? Did the rioters think about them?
No.
Like many of their generation (I call Generation "ME FIRST"), they saw an opportunity to take what they wanted and vandalise for the sake of vandalizing without regard to consequences.
So, to all those parents who raised such scum, congratulations. Your "New Age" politically-correct methods of raising kids without due regard to the well-being of others has succeeded. Your kids are now at the top of the heap for those most likely to dis-respect others in the pursuit of their own greedy little agendas of improving their self esteem and their pocketbooks.
Lets hope that the next generation of parents doesn't make the same mistakes.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Parent Induced Helplessness Syndrome
Today's post is more about helicopter parents, hyper parents and all the other types of parent induced helplessness that abounds today.
I call such things Parent Induced Helplessness Syndrome (PIHS, pronounced "piss").
Its a condition whereby children are so over-dependent on their parents, teachers or other adults to make even the simplest decisions that they are psychologically incapable of doing so, even when they become adults. And if they do make decisions, its often the wrong ones.
Here are some examples that everyone has heard of:
Kids who need their parents to canvass or sell on behalf of scouts/guides/brownies/campfire girls, etc. because they are too lazy or otherwise involved with the internet or organized activities to do it themselves.
Parents who do their kid's school projects or homework for them because they want them to get "good grades". This is self-explanatory.
Parents who schedule their kids' lives from the age of 6 months until they are 16 or 18 with constant involvement in sports, arts, music, dance and other structured activities so that they "will not miss out". Let them find out on their own what they are interested in, do not force these on them. No-one will ever mis out if they are not interested in the first place.
Parents who never let their kids run around outside with the neighborhood kids because "its too dangerous outside". The real facts are that your kids have around a .000001% chance of being snatched from your neighborhood and an 85% chance of them being abused by either a family friend of relative. Give your kids the benefit of the doubt when it comes to street smarts. Billions of kids have lived in their neighborhoods before yours have and never got snatched. Its only the rare ones who do.
Parents who accompany their kids to job interviews. If I were an employer and saw this, the kids would never get hired. I wouldn't even interview them, because their parents would answer all the questions and it shows no independence on the part of the kids.
Parents who accompany their kids to university and college orientations and the like. Like the job interviews, I would never let the kids into the schools until they showed initiative. I would always suspect that their parents were secretly doing their homework for them.
Parents who use cell phone GPS systems to track their kids movements 24/7. If you don't trust your kids, who do you trust?
Parents who refuse to set boundaries for their kids and yet never let them know right from wrong. Kids need boundaries and discipline to be shown what their physical and mental limits really are. That is the role of parents and educators. Kids are not in charge of the adult world for good reason; they can't handle it most of the time.
Parents who structure their every day around their kids' needs and activities so much that they (the parents) burn out. You do not need to spend all of your waking time with them to know where they are or what they are doing. You only need to trust them to do what is right for themselves.
Parents who force their kids to socialize at all costs, even if they really don't want to. Kids will socialize when and where they will. You cannot force introverts to become extroverts just as you cannot physically change their eye colour. They are who they are and forcing social skills on them is only going to warp them into something they are not going to be.
Parents who never have any time to educate their kids about morals and ethics, leaving these up to the ineffective school systems. Ethics and morals are taught by example, not by textbooks. If you are not demonstrating these to them every day by your own conduct and decisions, you are not doing your job as a parent.
Parents who lavish too much attention on their kids, caving in to their every need, no matter how outrageous. If you are not the parent, then who is? Are they in charge of your bank accounts?
Parents who want to be their kids' "best friend" instead of being the authority figure. Best friends do not impose discipline or boundaries like parents have to. Best friends let each other do what they want, when they want, no matter what the consequences are, even if it means jail time, physical injury or death.
Parents who let their kids call them by their first names (as well as other adults). This is a serious lack of respect being shown. Like wanting to be your kids' best friend, you are telling them that they are equals in responsibility and maturity. But that won't be the case until they grow up (if they ever can).
Parents who let professionals interfere with their natural rights as providers of discipline, order and safety in their kids' lives. The many doctors and other experts in child care do not see how they are interfering with the natural course of events. They see dollar signs when parents come to them with problems, not children doing what comes naturally to them.; testing boundaries.
Parents who never use reasonable force to discipline their kids. All criminal codes allow for parents to use reasonable force when disciplining their kids. That means they can be spanked or slapped on the wrist when young enough to know that what they are doing is not good for them. They can be given curfews or denied privileges when older. Other species of mammals always use such measures to keep their young from harm's way or to teach them the social order. People have been doing this for countless generations, so why did we stop?
Parents who buy their kids' affection with gifts all the time and for no reason. Not only does this give them a sense of entitlement far out of proportion to who they really are and what they deserve, but it doesn't teach them the value of money. They do not "need" anything more than the basic necessities of life. iPods, iPads, cell phones and other luxury gadgets are never going to be necessities, ever. The same goes for designer clothes, designer shoes, bikes and other items that cost a lot of money and are trendy.
Parents who have no boundaries or discipline themselves. Kids generally mimic what they see their parents do, if they can. Career criminals often have career criminal kids. The same goes for the generations on welfare.
Its probably not fair to single out parents in this mess all the time, but who do kids usually spend most of the time with, other than peer groups and teachers? Their families and parents.
Purely and simply, everyone knows some kids whose lives are messed up in one or more of the above ways and the current generation of twenty-somethings and teens and tweens know no other way of being. Many of them are from affluent middle or upper class families with a few from lower class families.
The constant trait among them all is an unwillingness to understand that they are not the "precious snowflakes" their parents have made them out to be and the world does not and has never owed them a living.
Nope, what the last 30 years of liberal parenting has done is create what I call Parent Induced Helplessness Syndrome, where every major and many minor decisions made by kids have to made by their parents or with so much parental involvement that they are really not making the decisions at all. It is increasingly apparent that few of these "precious snowflakes" have the critical thinking skills or decision making abilities to do much on their own. And when they do, its usually the wrong things with the wrong results.
Parent Induced Helplessness Syndrome (PIHS pronounced "piss") is a very real problem and one that the experts are not going to cure anytime soon. They are too busy making money by interfering with parent's rights to even study it.
So parents, stop doing the trendy helicopter/hyper parenting thing and ask your grandparents (unless they were hippies or New Agers) how to take control over your household and prevent this common and dangerous social disease from spreading.
Go back to a time when parents were parents and kids had few options but to obey you and knew their true boundaries. Generations upon generations did this before you did, so do it, for your children's sake.
I call such things Parent Induced Helplessness Syndrome (PIHS, pronounced "piss").
Its a condition whereby children are so over-dependent on their parents, teachers or other adults to make even the simplest decisions that they are psychologically incapable of doing so, even when they become adults. And if they do make decisions, its often the wrong ones.
Here are some examples that everyone has heard of:
Kids who need their parents to canvass or sell on behalf of scouts/guides/brownies/campfire girls, etc. because they are too lazy or otherwise involved with the internet or organized activities to do it themselves.
Parents who do their kid's school projects or homework for them because they want them to get "good grades". This is self-explanatory.
Parents who schedule their kids' lives from the age of 6 months until they are 16 or 18 with constant involvement in sports, arts, music, dance and other structured activities so that they "will not miss out". Let them find out on their own what they are interested in, do not force these on them. No-one will ever mis out if they are not interested in the first place.
Parents who never let their kids run around outside with the neighborhood kids because "its too dangerous outside". The real facts are that your kids have around a .000001% chance of being snatched from your neighborhood and an 85% chance of them being abused by either a family friend of relative. Give your kids the benefit of the doubt when it comes to street smarts. Billions of kids have lived in their neighborhoods before yours have and never got snatched. Its only the rare ones who do.
Parents who accompany their kids to job interviews. If I were an employer and saw this, the kids would never get hired. I wouldn't even interview them, because their parents would answer all the questions and it shows no independence on the part of the kids.
Parents who accompany their kids to university and college orientations and the like. Like the job interviews, I would never let the kids into the schools until they showed initiative. I would always suspect that their parents were secretly doing their homework for them.
Parents who use cell phone GPS systems to track their kids movements 24/7. If you don't trust your kids, who do you trust?
Parents who refuse to set boundaries for their kids and yet never let them know right from wrong. Kids need boundaries and discipline to be shown what their physical and mental limits really are. That is the role of parents and educators. Kids are not in charge of the adult world for good reason; they can't handle it most of the time.
Parents who structure their every day around their kids' needs and activities so much that they (the parents) burn out. You do not need to spend all of your waking time with them to know where they are or what they are doing. You only need to trust them to do what is right for themselves.
Parents who force their kids to socialize at all costs, even if they really don't want to. Kids will socialize when and where they will. You cannot force introverts to become extroverts just as you cannot physically change their eye colour. They are who they are and forcing social skills on them is only going to warp them into something they are not going to be.
Parents who never have any time to educate their kids about morals and ethics, leaving these up to the ineffective school systems. Ethics and morals are taught by example, not by textbooks. If you are not demonstrating these to them every day by your own conduct and decisions, you are not doing your job as a parent.
Parents who lavish too much attention on their kids, caving in to their every need, no matter how outrageous. If you are not the parent, then who is? Are they in charge of your bank accounts?
Parents who want to be their kids' "best friend" instead of being the authority figure. Best friends do not impose discipline or boundaries like parents have to. Best friends let each other do what they want, when they want, no matter what the consequences are, even if it means jail time, physical injury or death.
Parents who let their kids call them by their first names (as well as other adults). This is a serious lack of respect being shown. Like wanting to be your kids' best friend, you are telling them that they are equals in responsibility and maturity. But that won't be the case until they grow up (if they ever can).
Parents who let professionals interfere with their natural rights as providers of discipline, order and safety in their kids' lives. The many doctors and other experts in child care do not see how they are interfering with the natural course of events. They see dollar signs when parents come to them with problems, not children doing what comes naturally to them.; testing boundaries.
Parents who never use reasonable force to discipline their kids. All criminal codes allow for parents to use reasonable force when disciplining their kids. That means they can be spanked or slapped on the wrist when young enough to know that what they are doing is not good for them. They can be given curfews or denied privileges when older. Other species of mammals always use such measures to keep their young from harm's way or to teach them the social order. People have been doing this for countless generations, so why did we stop?
Parents who buy their kids' affection with gifts all the time and for no reason. Not only does this give them a sense of entitlement far out of proportion to who they really are and what they deserve, but it doesn't teach them the value of money. They do not "need" anything more than the basic necessities of life. iPods, iPads, cell phones and other luxury gadgets are never going to be necessities, ever. The same goes for designer clothes, designer shoes, bikes and other items that cost a lot of money and are trendy.
Parents who have no boundaries or discipline themselves. Kids generally mimic what they see their parents do, if they can. Career criminals often have career criminal kids. The same goes for the generations on welfare.
Its probably not fair to single out parents in this mess all the time, but who do kids usually spend most of the time with, other than peer groups and teachers? Their families and parents.
Purely and simply, everyone knows some kids whose lives are messed up in one or more of the above ways and the current generation of twenty-somethings and teens and tweens know no other way of being. Many of them are from affluent middle or upper class families with a few from lower class families.
The constant trait among them all is an unwillingness to understand that they are not the "precious snowflakes" their parents have made them out to be and the world does not and has never owed them a living.
Nope, what the last 30 years of liberal parenting has done is create what I call Parent Induced Helplessness Syndrome, where every major and many minor decisions made by kids have to made by their parents or with so much parental involvement that they are really not making the decisions at all. It is increasingly apparent that few of these "precious snowflakes" have the critical thinking skills or decision making abilities to do much on their own. And when they do, its usually the wrong things with the wrong results.
Parent Induced Helplessness Syndrome (PIHS pronounced "piss") is a very real problem and one that the experts are not going to cure anytime soon. They are too busy making money by interfering with parent's rights to even study it.
So parents, stop doing the trendy helicopter/hyper parenting thing and ask your grandparents (unless they were hippies or New Agers) how to take control over your household and prevent this common and dangerous social disease from spreading.
Go back to a time when parents were parents and kids had few options but to obey you and knew their true boundaries. Generations upon generations did this before you did, so do it, for your children's sake.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
the Japan Quake
I had plans to post another rant soon, but real life happened several thousand miles away and it needs addressing.
Last Friday, a massive 9.0 earthquake hit the northeast coast of Japan, nearly wiping out the region. It has left millions of people without homes. Thousands of people are dead (and the death toll could be over 20,000 when all is said and done). The entire country is running rolling blackouts to conserve energy and, most important for everyone, at least four nuclear reactors have been damaged releasing radiation into the atmosphere.
The death toll could have been worse. The government installed the world's most sophisticated early warning system for detecting earthquakes and it helped tremendously.
Which brings me to request that people give to the Red Cross's relief fund. In Canada, you can text "Asia" to 30333 to donate, courtesy of Rogers Communication.
Now on to a mini-rant.
What gives people the right to claim that the earthquake was the result of the Japanese people not embracing X, Y or Z religion/ideology. Almost as soon as the disaster happened, wingnuts from the far ends of the religious spectrum issued statements to that effect and it makes me ill. Statements suggesting this have come from the far ends of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. No doubt others, such as radical pagans and environmentalists will chime in with similar crazed statements.
Nobody, least of all villagers and townspeople just living their lives quietly, deserves anything like what happened, ever.
Its the truly small-minded, idiotic and superstitious people of the world who would insist that their way is the "right" and "true" way to live and blame people's behaviour for uncontrollable acts of nature. I'm just waiting for a fatwa to be issued, blaming Japan for not embracing Islam.
Which point brings me to another, important, point about fatwas and earthquakes and such. Iran blamed the "American-Zionist conspiracy" for their quake which happened last year. How ridiculous and hypocritical.
When a non-Muslim country gets hit by a natural disaster, its a sign that they are not living according to the koran and Islam. When a Muslim country gets hit by the same type of disaster, its not because the people themselves are bad, but because of this imaginary "American-Zionist conspiracy". How do they think that the US and Israel can control tectonic plates in exactly the same way that their deity does? This is presumptuous as they are claiming that the US and Israel have the same level of powers over the world and natural forces as their deity. Such hypocrisy. Yet for many millions of ignorant, ill-educated and illiterate people, this stupidity is believed.
Such people exist in every religion and ideology.
So, to all those who will blame the Japanese for this earthquake because they didn't embrace whatever ideology that you do, go blow. Its not your place to judge others and its utterly ridiculous to assume that nature cares on whit about who believes what. Get a grip. Natural disasters can happen to anyone, not just "the unbelievers" of the world. When something like this happens to you, will you blame yourself, or try to survive intact?
The choice is up to you, not some remote religious or ideological authority..
Last Friday, a massive 9.0 earthquake hit the northeast coast of Japan, nearly wiping out the region. It has left millions of people without homes. Thousands of people are dead (and the death toll could be over 20,000 when all is said and done). The entire country is running rolling blackouts to conserve energy and, most important for everyone, at least four nuclear reactors have been damaged releasing radiation into the atmosphere.
The death toll could have been worse. The government installed the world's most sophisticated early warning system for detecting earthquakes and it helped tremendously.
Which brings me to request that people give to the Red Cross's relief fund. In Canada, you can text "Asia" to 30333 to donate, courtesy of Rogers Communication.
Now on to a mini-rant.
What gives people the right to claim that the earthquake was the result of the Japanese people not embracing X, Y or Z religion/ideology. Almost as soon as the disaster happened, wingnuts from the far ends of the religious spectrum issued statements to that effect and it makes me ill. Statements suggesting this have come from the far ends of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. No doubt others, such as radical pagans and environmentalists will chime in with similar crazed statements.
Nobody, least of all villagers and townspeople just living their lives quietly, deserves anything like what happened, ever.
Its the truly small-minded, idiotic and superstitious people of the world who would insist that their way is the "right" and "true" way to live and blame people's behaviour for uncontrollable acts of nature. I'm just waiting for a fatwa to be issued, blaming Japan for not embracing Islam.
Which point brings me to another, important, point about fatwas and earthquakes and such. Iran blamed the "American-Zionist conspiracy" for their quake which happened last year. How ridiculous and hypocritical.
When a non-Muslim country gets hit by a natural disaster, its a sign that they are not living according to the koran and Islam. When a Muslim country gets hit by the same type of disaster, its not because the people themselves are bad, but because of this imaginary "American-Zionist conspiracy". How do they think that the US and Israel can control tectonic plates in exactly the same way that their deity does? This is presumptuous as they are claiming that the US and Israel have the same level of powers over the world and natural forces as their deity. Such hypocrisy. Yet for many millions of ignorant, ill-educated and illiterate people, this stupidity is believed.
Such people exist in every religion and ideology.
So, to all those who will blame the Japanese for this earthquake because they didn't embrace whatever ideology that you do, go blow. Its not your place to judge others and its utterly ridiculous to assume that nature cares on whit about who believes what. Get a grip. Natural disasters can happen to anyone, not just "the unbelievers" of the world. When something like this happens to you, will you blame yourself, or try to survive intact?
The choice is up to you, not some remote religious or ideological authority..
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Hyper Parents
Last night, my wife watched a CBC documentary called Hyper Parents, Coddled Kids. This documentary aired just under a year ago and it really hit the nail on the head when it demonstrated that today's hyper-vigilant, hyper-indulgent parents are doing far more damage to their kids than they suspect.
I urge people, especially parents, to watch the documentary on-line to get a rude awakening.
I may sound like a broken record, but I say that this happened as a result of the fearful 1980s when all of a sudden, parents and "experts" in child care began to interfere with the normal growth and development of children in North America. Since then, parents all over the continent, especially middle-class and upper-class parents, have taken it upon themselves to actively monitor, interfere with and damage their kids because "an expert told them so".
As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
My wife told me that the documentary did not point the finger at all of those who are responsible for people like "fountain girl" and her generation.
They forgot to point the finger at all child experts who run interference in childhood. From pediatricians to child psychologists and child psychiatrists, and everyone in between, these people have prevented parents from doing what is instinctive in people: being parents.
If they have to use physical punishment, then they should, within reason. If they have to let their kids fail, then let them fail. Perhaps they will learn from their mistakes.
What is increasingly apparent is that there may be a correlation between the rise in autism and the hyper parenting that is done.
Could it be possible that without free play or 'normal' growth development, kids are not longer learning proper social skills, even without really being autistic? Could it be that because their lives have been so regimented and scheduled by over-bearing parents that they cannot socialize well?
Think about it.
From pre-birth to the time they enter college and university, today's kids have had their parents schedule their lives for them, make their decisions for them and even determine what their careers are going to be. Kids have no more freedom to be who they want to be.
And without facing the consequences of free play, where kids get bullied, hurt and shamed, they have no sense of empathy or right and wrong. Everything then becomes relative, there are no more rules that apply equally to everyone. Some become "more equal" than others.
I will leave with two paragraphs from the article accompanying the documentary that illustrate how extensive the problem is:
"Many parents take it upon themselves to fill out application forms and write the admissions essay on their child's behalf. Some even follow their pampered progeny right into the workplace - attending job interviews and even trying to negotiate salary and contracts."
"As the first batch of hyper-parented kids (Generation Y) emerges into adulthood, they do not seem to be quite ready for the real world. University psychologists report today's students experience higher levels of anxiety than any generation before them. And employers are pulling their hair out as Gen Y employees show up at work with an unprecedented sense of entitlement - 'Paying your dues' is not part of their vernacular. They require a lot of supervision and they challenge everything from dress code to office hierarchy."
For those who have come before this molly-coddled generation, this is bad news. Very bad news.
Not only do these kids feel entitled to everything, they are increasingly willing to commit crimes in order to get those things.
The upshot of this entire situation is that parents and experts alike are afraid of setting boundaries for kids and they are afraid of discipline. They are the two cornerstones of raising kids to be healthy, responsible adults.
All else is pure fantasy and hyper parenting.
I urge people, especially parents, to watch the documentary on-line to get a rude awakening.
I may sound like a broken record, but I say that this happened as a result of the fearful 1980s when all of a sudden, parents and "experts" in child care began to interfere with the normal growth and development of children in North America. Since then, parents all over the continent, especially middle-class and upper-class parents, have taken it upon themselves to actively monitor, interfere with and damage their kids because "an expert told them so".
As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
My wife told me that the documentary did not point the finger at all of those who are responsible for people like "fountain girl" and her generation.
They forgot to point the finger at all child experts who run interference in childhood. From pediatricians to child psychologists and child psychiatrists, and everyone in between, these people have prevented parents from doing what is instinctive in people: being parents.
If they have to use physical punishment, then they should, within reason. If they have to let their kids fail, then let them fail. Perhaps they will learn from their mistakes.
What is increasingly apparent is that there may be a correlation between the rise in autism and the hyper parenting that is done.
Could it be possible that without free play or 'normal' growth development, kids are not longer learning proper social skills, even without really being autistic? Could it be that because their lives have been so regimented and scheduled by over-bearing parents that they cannot socialize well?
Think about it.
From pre-birth to the time they enter college and university, today's kids have had their parents schedule their lives for them, make their decisions for them and even determine what their careers are going to be. Kids have no more freedom to be who they want to be.
And without facing the consequences of free play, where kids get bullied, hurt and shamed, they have no sense of empathy or right and wrong. Everything then becomes relative, there are no more rules that apply equally to everyone. Some become "more equal" than others.
I will leave with two paragraphs from the article accompanying the documentary that illustrate how extensive the problem is:
"Many parents take it upon themselves to fill out application forms and write the admissions essay on their child's behalf. Some even follow their pampered progeny right into the workplace - attending job interviews and even trying to negotiate salary and contracts."
"As the first batch of hyper-parented kids (Generation Y) emerges into adulthood, they do not seem to be quite ready for the real world. University psychologists report today's students experience higher levels of anxiety than any generation before them. And employers are pulling their hair out as Gen Y employees show up at work with an unprecedented sense of entitlement - 'Paying your dues' is not part of their vernacular. They require a lot of supervision and they challenge everything from dress code to office hierarchy."
For those who have come before this molly-coddled generation, this is bad news. Very bad news.
Not only do these kids feel entitled to everything, they are increasingly willing to commit crimes in order to get those things.
The upshot of this entire situation is that parents and experts alike are afraid of setting boundaries for kids and they are afraid of discipline. They are the two cornerstones of raising kids to be healthy, responsible adults.
All else is pure fantasy and hyper parenting.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Fountain Girl is the Poster Girl of her generation
Here's a good one that happened the other day.
Cathy Cruz Marrero was walking along and texting when she didn't realize that there was a fountain right in front of her so naturally, she fell in.
This was captured on a security video, which was most likely uploaded to a phone camera and then onto the web, where it went viral with over 1 million hits before the first day of release was over.
No-one could see her face, and even though it was funny to many people, the woman stepped forward, identified herself and then proceeded to seek legal redress for something that was her fault.
Had she not gone public with her identity, this story would have lasted around a day or two, then vanished. But no, she had to make more of a fool of herself and seek a legal remedy to what should have been better left alone. Now the world knows how idiotic she was and how the legal system can reward stupidity with what may amount to a monetary settlement, if it ever gets to court.
I hope that it never does and that she and her lawyer are charged with wasting the court's time on a very trivial matter. But that may not likely happen, since there are two things in her favour.
One: the US justice system rewards greed and stupidity in force, not because these things should be rewarded, but because corporations like those that run the mall where she fell have better things to do with their time and money than fight a frivolous lawsuit. So they often will settle out of court.
Two: because she is of that generation of twenty-somethings who thinks nothing of trying to get money for nothing so that she can live on easy street. At least until the money runs out, and nine times out of ten, most people who get large sums of cash usually go bankrupt during the first five years after receiving it. At least that is what happens to most lottery winners who go from rags to riches and never learned how to save.
Because she is of that generation, she also has the backing of her parent(s) who will make it their business to see to it that she cashes in on what should never have been an issue in the first place. The fact is that even as a toddler, you are taught that you have to watch where you are going, otherwise you may trip and fall or run into things.
Its elementary knowledge that we have eyes in front of our heads for a good reason, and that reason is not so that you can text away your life on trivial matters.
I'm glad that two things that have come from this incident.
One: that she wasn't driving and hit some pedestrian. Or that she didn't get hit by a car (though that may be debatable in light of her lawsuit).
Two: "Marrero says she'll never walk and text again."
Should she get anything from the courts, it should ideally be a reprimand and a warning that the courts are not there to teach common sense.
As such, I think that she is the poster girl of all that is truly wrong with her generation.
Cathy Cruz Marrero was walking along and texting when she didn't realize that there was a fountain right in front of her so naturally, she fell in.
This was captured on a security video, which was most likely uploaded to a phone camera and then onto the web, where it went viral with over 1 million hits before the first day of release was over.
No-one could see her face, and even though it was funny to many people, the woman stepped forward, identified herself and then proceeded to seek legal redress for something that was her fault.
Had she not gone public with her identity, this story would have lasted around a day or two, then vanished. But no, she had to make more of a fool of herself and seek a legal remedy to what should have been better left alone. Now the world knows how idiotic she was and how the legal system can reward stupidity with what may amount to a monetary settlement, if it ever gets to court.
I hope that it never does and that she and her lawyer are charged with wasting the court's time on a very trivial matter. But that may not likely happen, since there are two things in her favour.
One: the US justice system rewards greed and stupidity in force, not because these things should be rewarded, but because corporations like those that run the mall where she fell have better things to do with their time and money than fight a frivolous lawsuit. So they often will settle out of court.
Two: because she is of that generation of twenty-somethings who thinks nothing of trying to get money for nothing so that she can live on easy street. At least until the money runs out, and nine times out of ten, most people who get large sums of cash usually go bankrupt during the first five years after receiving it. At least that is what happens to most lottery winners who go from rags to riches and never learned how to save.
Because she is of that generation, she also has the backing of her parent(s) who will make it their business to see to it that she cashes in on what should never have been an issue in the first place. The fact is that even as a toddler, you are taught that you have to watch where you are going, otherwise you may trip and fall or run into things.
Its elementary knowledge that we have eyes in front of our heads for a good reason, and that reason is not so that you can text away your life on trivial matters.
I'm glad that two things that have come from this incident.
One: that she wasn't driving and hit some pedestrian. Or that she didn't get hit by a car (though that may be debatable in light of her lawsuit).
Two: "Marrero says she'll never walk and text again."
Should she get anything from the courts, it should ideally be a reprimand and a warning that the courts are not there to teach common sense.
As such, I think that she is the poster girl of all that is truly wrong with her generation.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
This will piss off a lot of parents...
This rather long post is going to piss off a lot of people, especially over-indulgent parents, educators and experts in child care.
"Are You Raising a Douchebag" is the title of an interesting Details magazine article written by David Hochman. The article takes aim at those parents who are providing their kids with far more than the basic necessities of life and are also trying to be their kids' "best friends".
Here's a paragraph:
"We create parenting blogs that transform our preschoolers into fetishized celebrities. We subscribe to magazines that suggest buying a 5-year-old a $400 Marc Jacobs cashmere hoodie. We think it's cute when our kids learn to text message (until we realize POS means "parent over shoulder") and quietly rejoice when they can tell which Ramone is Dee Dee and which one is Joey."
The article offers the idea that over-indulging kids is a bad idea and that our society has gone too far in that direction. I agree wholeheartedly.
Do a search on "helicopter parents" and you come up with thousands of articles that blast the concept further, including an eye-opener from Canadian Business to Business magazine from 2006. The article reveals that parents are, well, here are the pertinent paragraphs:
"Managers are getting phone calls from parents asking them to hire their 20-something kids. Candidates are stalling on job offers to consult with their parents. Parents are calling hiring managers to negotiate pay packages."
"Over-involved parents meddle in college registration and interfering with students' dealings with professors, administrators and roommates. Students who get frustrated or confused during registration have been known to interrupt their advisers to whip out a cell phone, speed-dial their parents and hand the phone to the adviser, saying, "Here, talk to my mom.""
(www.super-solutions.com/helicopterparents_boomerangkids.asp)
I have personally seen the latter happen at the UPS store that I worked at this summer when a parent helped their twenty-something kid fill out a registration form prior to shipping it out.
These are but two of the many articles that tackle a growing problem: twenty-somethings, teenagers and kids who feel that they are entitled to everything that they ask for.
Where do we put the blame, if there is any to be put?
I blame the legions of so-called experts who, over the past 35 years, have seen fit to interfere with thousands of generations of parental wisdom to prevent parents from doing what they once did best: instill in their kids a sense of moral and ethical values.
I blame the endless ranks of pediatricians, child psychologists and child psychiatrists who routinely diagnose medical and psychiatric/psychological problems where they really don't exist. If a child isn't playing according to the un-writtend "corporate norm for play", that's perfectly all right. If a child isn't socializing like his/her type 'A' personality peers, that's OK. If a child isn't able to learn at the same rate as fellow students, that's OK, too.
I blame the education systems that use the recommendations of these experts to change the shool systems of North America (meaning the US and Canada) into social promotion and self-esteem academies. They ignore basic education in favour of a multitude of "feel good" coursework so as not to hurt their 'precious snowflakes'' chances at being happy. (See this month's Skeptical Inquirer article on our obsession with happiness for a good take on that subject.)
In many school districts, children are not allowed to fail any course or grade so as not to hurt their self-esteem or lag behind their peers. More importantly to the schools, it boosts their graduation rates beyond what they should really be. Since many school boards get funding based on these numbers, is it any wonder that education often panders more to the kids than to anyone else?
When otherwise normal teenagers cannot hand-write their name on a bank form, then we are in deep trouble. An Alberta MLA witnessed this happen just this past year.
I blame the politicians for over-legislating family law so much so that kids are now able to sue their parents over such trivial things as curfews. They have also hampered law enforcement officers by removing real punishments for kids who are violent or repeat offenders.
I blame the social agencies that constantly hamper their own best intentions by over-regulating their workers in the interests of avoiding lawsuits.
I blame media that en-nobles gangsters through old-school rap, movies, TV and other forms of entertainment that tends to glorify criminal behaviour.
I blame the kids who hold these thugs and criminals in high esteem.
Above all, I blame ourselves for holding onto this ideal that our kid's lives are supposed to be more comfortable and happier than our own childhoods were. While that may be something to wish for, we have to let our kids make that happen for themselves. We cannot hold their hands and keep them kids forever. Sooner or later they must grow up.
It is largely my generation of 50-somethings that has enabled this over the past 25 to 30 years, ever since they became parents.
What are we teaching kids if we let them pass courses without them ever doing any real work to pass them?
What are we teaching our kids about right and wrong if the consequences for committing crimes are non-existent (I am speaking primarily of Canadian legislation that slaps kids on the wrist for committing crimes)? Or if we cannot set boundaries for them or discipline them when they are very young?
What are we doing when we allow kids to make decisions for the household on a regular basis?
We are setting our society up for failure.
Failure to understand the ethics and values that has made our society perhaps the most free and educated in the world. Failure to show kids that parents will not always be there. Failure to let our kids grow up as mature, responsible citizens.
Children are learning from these examples that there are few boundaries in life that they cannot overcome merely because of who they are. They get an overpowering sense of entitlement far beyond what they have earned or truly deserve.
This goes beyond what people would call common sense into the realm of madness.
Quite a while ago I read an article where a parent asked why she felt uncomfortable when her 4 year old was awarded a certificate for sitting on the carpet in pre-school class. The kid was being rewarded for doing what is common sense: to behave properly. It seemed to expose all of the faults of over-induglent parents, educators and modern society in a nutshell.
Here were teachers trying to instill self-esteem by over-rewarding kids with something that is meaningless. Given a dozen of these pieces of paper over the course of a month and the effects are reduced as the rewards pile up. Over the course of the average child's education, the perhaps hundreds or thousands of stickers, stars, trophies, citations and certificates will mean nothing to the kids.
You cannot impose self-esteem on children from without. The self-esteem comes from accomplishing things on your own.
You cannot educate children by avoiding the consequences of failure to do the work and passing them regardless of what they have accomplished. As an aside, it also encourages lazy or incompetent teachers by skewing graduation results.
You cannot legislate morality. It comes from the ability of parents to set reasonable boundaries on their kids and discipling them from a young age according to the general norms of society.
So how do we fix this?
By returning education back to the basics of what is needed to succeed as an adult, not education for the sake of getting students to the next grade or to make them "feel good" about themselves. Education is about furthering education today, not about equipping children to survive a somehwat hostile or indifferent world when they are adults.
By educating children about "respecting others, respecting themselves and respecting learning" as Barry Schwartz put it in February 2009. Parents can do this by being respectful of these things themselves.
By letting parents, not child-rearing "experts" determine reasonable discipline methods and boundaries for their kids.
By calling the shots when you are a parent and trusting your instincts. For countless generations, parents have used their instincts to raise their kids without the need for expert advice.
This over-reliance on experts is nonsense that merely keeps those experts in business. We only need experts in cases where things are either too extreme to handle or too ambiguous to understand. Most behaviours and events in a child's life are neither. Are you listening, you parents of ADD/Autistic kids?
Being a parent today means being overwhelmed by countless experts telling you how to be what should come naturally.
Being a parent today means giving up your rights and letting these same strangers tell you how, what, and why you do things for your kids.
So call the shots, set boundaries that are reasonable for the age of your kids and let them know that failure to get something or to learn something doesn't mean the end of the world, but is an opportunity to learn and grow up.
"Are You Raising a Douchebag" is the title of an interesting Details magazine article written by David Hochman. The article takes aim at those parents who are providing their kids with far more than the basic necessities of life and are also trying to be their kids' "best friends".
Here's a paragraph:
"We create parenting blogs that transform our preschoolers into fetishized celebrities. We subscribe to magazines that suggest buying a 5-year-old a $400 Marc Jacobs cashmere hoodie. We think it's cute when our kids learn to text message (until we realize POS means "parent over shoulder") and quietly rejoice when they can tell which Ramone is Dee Dee and which one is Joey."
The article offers the idea that over-indulging kids is a bad idea and that our society has gone too far in that direction. I agree wholeheartedly.
Do a search on "helicopter parents" and you come up with thousands of articles that blast the concept further, including an eye-opener from Canadian Business to Business magazine from 2006. The article reveals that parents are, well, here are the pertinent paragraphs:
"Managers are getting phone calls from parents asking them to hire their 20-something kids. Candidates are stalling on job offers to consult with their parents. Parents are calling hiring managers to negotiate pay packages."
"Over-involved parents meddle in college registration and interfering with students' dealings with professors, administrators and roommates. Students who get frustrated or confused during registration have been known to interrupt their advisers to whip out a cell phone, speed-dial their parents and hand the phone to the adviser, saying, "Here, talk to my mom.""
(www.super-solutions.com/helicopterparents_boomerangkids.asp)
I have personally seen the latter happen at the UPS store that I worked at this summer when a parent helped their twenty-something kid fill out a registration form prior to shipping it out.
These are but two of the many articles that tackle a growing problem: twenty-somethings, teenagers and kids who feel that they are entitled to everything that they ask for.
Where do we put the blame, if there is any to be put?
I blame the legions of so-called experts who, over the past 35 years, have seen fit to interfere with thousands of generations of parental wisdom to prevent parents from doing what they once did best: instill in their kids a sense of moral and ethical values.
I blame the endless ranks of pediatricians, child psychologists and child psychiatrists who routinely diagnose medical and psychiatric/psychological problems where they really don't exist. If a child isn't playing according to the un-writtend "corporate norm for play", that's perfectly all right. If a child isn't socializing like his/her type 'A' personality peers, that's OK. If a child isn't able to learn at the same rate as fellow students, that's OK, too.
I blame the education systems that use the recommendations of these experts to change the shool systems of North America (meaning the US and Canada) into social promotion and self-esteem academies. They ignore basic education in favour of a multitude of "feel good" coursework so as not to hurt their 'precious snowflakes'' chances at being happy. (See this month's Skeptical Inquirer article on our obsession with happiness for a good take on that subject.)
In many school districts, children are not allowed to fail any course or grade so as not to hurt their self-esteem or lag behind their peers. More importantly to the schools, it boosts their graduation rates beyond what they should really be. Since many school boards get funding based on these numbers, is it any wonder that education often panders more to the kids than to anyone else?
When otherwise normal teenagers cannot hand-write their name on a bank form, then we are in deep trouble. An Alberta MLA witnessed this happen just this past year.
I blame the politicians for over-legislating family law so much so that kids are now able to sue their parents over such trivial things as curfews. They have also hampered law enforcement officers by removing real punishments for kids who are violent or repeat offenders.
I blame the social agencies that constantly hamper their own best intentions by over-regulating their workers in the interests of avoiding lawsuits.
I blame media that en-nobles gangsters through old-school rap, movies, TV and other forms of entertainment that tends to glorify criminal behaviour.
I blame the kids who hold these thugs and criminals in high esteem.
Above all, I blame ourselves for holding onto this ideal that our kid's lives are supposed to be more comfortable and happier than our own childhoods were. While that may be something to wish for, we have to let our kids make that happen for themselves. We cannot hold their hands and keep them kids forever. Sooner or later they must grow up.
It is largely my generation of 50-somethings that has enabled this over the past 25 to 30 years, ever since they became parents.
What are we teaching kids if we let them pass courses without them ever doing any real work to pass them?
What are we teaching our kids about right and wrong if the consequences for committing crimes are non-existent (I am speaking primarily of Canadian legislation that slaps kids on the wrist for committing crimes)? Or if we cannot set boundaries for them or discipline them when they are very young?
What are we doing when we allow kids to make decisions for the household on a regular basis?
We are setting our society up for failure.
Failure to understand the ethics and values that has made our society perhaps the most free and educated in the world. Failure to show kids that parents will not always be there. Failure to let our kids grow up as mature, responsible citizens.
Children are learning from these examples that there are few boundaries in life that they cannot overcome merely because of who they are. They get an overpowering sense of entitlement far beyond what they have earned or truly deserve.
This goes beyond what people would call common sense into the realm of madness.
Quite a while ago I read an article where a parent asked why she felt uncomfortable when her 4 year old was awarded a certificate for sitting on the carpet in pre-school class. The kid was being rewarded for doing what is common sense: to behave properly. It seemed to expose all of the faults of over-induglent parents, educators and modern society in a nutshell.
Here were teachers trying to instill self-esteem by over-rewarding kids with something that is meaningless. Given a dozen of these pieces of paper over the course of a month and the effects are reduced as the rewards pile up. Over the course of the average child's education, the perhaps hundreds or thousands of stickers, stars, trophies, citations and certificates will mean nothing to the kids.
You cannot impose self-esteem on children from without. The self-esteem comes from accomplishing things on your own.
You cannot educate children by avoiding the consequences of failure to do the work and passing them regardless of what they have accomplished. As an aside, it also encourages lazy or incompetent teachers by skewing graduation results.
You cannot legislate morality. It comes from the ability of parents to set reasonable boundaries on their kids and discipling them from a young age according to the general norms of society.
So how do we fix this?
By returning education back to the basics of what is needed to succeed as an adult, not education for the sake of getting students to the next grade or to make them "feel good" about themselves. Education is about furthering education today, not about equipping children to survive a somehwat hostile or indifferent world when they are adults.
By educating children about "respecting others, respecting themselves and respecting learning" as Barry Schwartz put it in February 2009. Parents can do this by being respectful of these things themselves.
By letting parents, not child-rearing "experts" determine reasonable discipline methods and boundaries for their kids.
By calling the shots when you are a parent and trusting your instincts. For countless generations, parents have used their instincts to raise their kids without the need for expert advice.
This over-reliance on experts is nonsense that merely keeps those experts in business. We only need experts in cases where things are either too extreme to handle or too ambiguous to understand. Most behaviours and events in a child's life are neither. Are you listening, you parents of ADD/Autistic kids?
Being a parent today means being overwhelmed by countless experts telling you how to be what should come naturally.
Being a parent today means giving up your rights and letting these same strangers tell you how, what, and why you do things for your kids.
So call the shots, set boundaries that are reasonable for the age of your kids and let them know that failure to get something or to learn something doesn't mean the end of the world, but is an opportunity to learn and grow up.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Why use more credit?
Recently, the Canadian government released radio commercials outlining the new credit card rules http://actionplan.gc.ca/initiatives/eng/index.asp?mode=5&initiativeID=47 ). What struck me as odd was that the current financial crisis, which doesn't show any signs of going away soon, was essentially caused by over-use of credit tied to the US housing market.
The following is a quote from the Wikipedia article on the financial crisis that sums up what happened:
"Steadily decreasing interest rates backed by the U.S Federal Reserve from 1982 onward and large inflows of foreign funds created easy credit conditions for a number of years prior to the crisis, fueling a housing construction boom and encouraging debt-financed consumption.[13] The combination of easy credit and money inflow contributed to the United States housing bubble. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[14][15] As part of the housing and credit booms, the number of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), which derived their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased."
You will note that I highlighted "encouraging debt-financed consumption". Thats for good reason.
The only people who benefit from credit and debt are the lenders and their associates in any economy and that means the banks, financiers and brokers. They benefit by adding service fees, commissions and other charges such as interest (for lenders) to what can be seen as imaginary money.
Its imaginary, because the borrowers and purchasers of loans, mortgages, etc. have to earn the money in the future to pay to the lenders what they purchased.
Tied to this imaginary money are thousands of what I call monetary performance instruments. Others call them financial instruments. They consist of hedge funds, GICs, RESPs, IRAs, 401(k)s, pension funds and dozens of similar items worldwide. Big businesses use these to finance their mega-projects which in turn employs thousands of people. In itself, this is probably a good thing, since employing people keeps the money flowing and workers from losing their homes.
But when this borrowed money ceases to flow, then things collapse as it did in 2007-2008. It creates a top-heavy debt load on the savings which lenders are allowed to use as seed money for the loans. For every dollar put into a savings account, banks can loan a certain amount per dollar for others to use. The same goes for money invested in monetary performance instruments. It spirals the debt upwards and upwards until thousands of corporations and investors can have money tied up in everyone else's pies.
So what is the connection between this and the new credit card rules in Canada?
Plenty, since the government sees fit to encourage more debt loads onto consumers, which is the large "c" conservative mindset in a nutshell. Spend, spend, spend is all they understand of the economy.
I propose that we use our savings, that means using already earned income, to purchase goods and services. While it would be difficult for businesses of the size of major construction firms or manufacturers to do this, it would improve the economy immensely if the average Joe did it. After all, it wasn't until around 40 years ago that consumer credit became easier to obtain for the average person. Until then, most people saved what they earned to purchase things. Credit cards and loans were rare.
In this time of Christmas spending, when shoppers can go over-board with gifts, this is wise counsel.
This is your ever-loving curmudgeon signing off for the day. Have a great weekend.
The following is a quote from the Wikipedia article on the financial crisis that sums up what happened:
"Steadily decreasing interest rates backed by the U.S Federal Reserve from 1982 onward and large inflows of foreign funds created easy credit conditions for a number of years prior to the crisis, fueling a housing construction boom and encouraging debt-financed consumption.[13] The combination of easy credit and money inflow contributed to the United States housing bubble. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[14][15] As part of the housing and credit booms, the number of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), which derived their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased."
You will note that I highlighted "encouraging debt-financed consumption". Thats for good reason.
The only people who benefit from credit and debt are the lenders and their associates in any economy and that means the banks, financiers and brokers. They benefit by adding service fees, commissions and other charges such as interest (for lenders) to what can be seen as imaginary money.
Its imaginary, because the borrowers and purchasers of loans, mortgages, etc. have to earn the money in the future to pay to the lenders what they purchased.
Tied to this imaginary money are thousands of what I call monetary performance instruments. Others call them financial instruments. They consist of hedge funds, GICs, RESPs, IRAs, 401(k)s, pension funds and dozens of similar items worldwide. Big businesses use these to finance their mega-projects which in turn employs thousands of people. In itself, this is probably a good thing, since employing people keeps the money flowing and workers from losing their homes.
But when this borrowed money ceases to flow, then things collapse as it did in 2007-2008. It creates a top-heavy debt load on the savings which lenders are allowed to use as seed money for the loans. For every dollar put into a savings account, banks can loan a certain amount per dollar for others to use. The same goes for money invested in monetary performance instruments. It spirals the debt upwards and upwards until thousands of corporations and investors can have money tied up in everyone else's pies.
So what is the connection between this and the new credit card rules in Canada?
Plenty, since the government sees fit to encourage more debt loads onto consumers, which is the large "c" conservative mindset in a nutshell. Spend, spend, spend is all they understand of the economy.
I propose that we use our savings, that means using already earned income, to purchase goods and services. While it would be difficult for businesses of the size of major construction firms or manufacturers to do this, it would improve the economy immensely if the average Joe did it. After all, it wasn't until around 40 years ago that consumer credit became easier to obtain for the average person. Until then, most people saved what they earned to purchase things. Credit cards and loans were rare.
In this time of Christmas spending, when shoppers can go over-board with gifts, this is wise counsel.
This is your ever-loving curmudgeon signing off for the day. Have a great weekend.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
When life isn't fair, I start thinking.
"Lie isn't fair" has been a statement that I have heard more times than I can count. It means that things may not always go our own way and that life generally sucks some of the time. I fully understand and accept that.
The motto at the top of this blog has added "but people can be" to the phrase for good reason. Since people have created this society and civilization and it's rules, people have the opportunity to right wrongs and make the world a better place. It throws the onus back on people to at least try and make this world a better place to live.
Notice how I said "make the world a better place" and not "make people better". Like Malcolm Reynolds in the movie Serenity, I don't hold that making people conform to what others believe is "better" can solve the world's ills. I propose that we change how we do things is the better alternative.
So when things go wrong, I start thinking. I begin with the question: Why is this the way it is? and work from there with the limited resources and understanding of the world that I have. Then I run it around in my subconscious or wherever these things go to come up with solutions. They may not always work, but then, I figure that I can be "more right than wrong" to suit my understanding of the problem. When others tell me otherwise, then I will change the idea.
In my experience, people have more common wisdom than the "experts" will ever want to admit. And those with a moderate amount of common sense can make this world a "better place" without having to get permission from these same experts.
It happens all the time: parents will have a child that has some difficulty with life and the first thing they do is go to the "experts" who will plan out strategies, lessons and other time-intensive work just to make things better. More often than not, medication is also involved. What usually ends up happening is that the parents are out hundreds or thousands of dollars, the experts have their theories validated and the situation really never changes. Sometimes the kids are worse off than before.
Or take another example: traffic control. Planners will make studies, monitor daily traffic volumes and then suggest to city council that x, y and z changes must be made in order to make traffic flow smoother. The usual end result is more of the same: traffic snarls and lost time waiting for some line of cars to move forward 50 feet in 20 minutes.
In both examples, parents and drivers are generally pushed aside to make room for the experts and their book-based theories to do their thing.
Whats wrong with the picture is that common sense and the wisdom of generations of parents and drivers gets ignored.
With this blog, I intend to set the balance in favour of common sense. I will infuriate readers, confound them and give them something to think about using their critical thinking skills. I will also try to inspire as many of the speakers at TED.com inspire me with ideas and suggestions on how to make this world a better place for all of us.
Life isn't fair, but people can be"" is a challenge to get up and do something to right the daily wrongs we face. Because we need more right, less wrong in our lives.
The motto at the top of this blog has added "but people can be" to the phrase for good reason. Since people have created this society and civilization and it's rules, people have the opportunity to right wrongs and make the world a better place. It throws the onus back on people to at least try and make this world a better place to live.
Notice how I said "make the world a better place" and not "make people better". Like Malcolm Reynolds in the movie Serenity, I don't hold that making people conform to what others believe is "better" can solve the world's ills. I propose that we change how we do things is the better alternative.
So when things go wrong, I start thinking. I begin with the question: Why is this the way it is? and work from there with the limited resources and understanding of the world that I have. Then I run it around in my subconscious or wherever these things go to come up with solutions. They may not always work, but then, I figure that I can be "more right than wrong" to suit my understanding of the problem. When others tell me otherwise, then I will change the idea.
In my experience, people have more common wisdom than the "experts" will ever want to admit. And those with a moderate amount of common sense can make this world a "better place" without having to get permission from these same experts.
It happens all the time: parents will have a child that has some difficulty with life and the first thing they do is go to the "experts" who will plan out strategies, lessons and other time-intensive work just to make things better. More often than not, medication is also involved. What usually ends up happening is that the parents are out hundreds or thousands of dollars, the experts have their theories validated and the situation really never changes. Sometimes the kids are worse off than before.
Or take another example: traffic control. Planners will make studies, monitor daily traffic volumes and then suggest to city council that x, y and z changes must be made in order to make traffic flow smoother. The usual end result is more of the same: traffic snarls and lost time waiting for some line of cars to move forward 50 feet in 20 minutes.
In both examples, parents and drivers are generally pushed aside to make room for the experts and their book-based theories to do their thing.
Whats wrong with the picture is that common sense and the wisdom of generations of parents and drivers gets ignored.
With this blog, I intend to set the balance in favour of common sense. I will infuriate readers, confound them and give them something to think about using their critical thinking skills. I will also try to inspire as many of the speakers at TED.com inspire me with ideas and suggestions on how to make this world a better place for all of us.
Life isn't fair, but people can be"" is a challenge to get up and do something to right the daily wrongs we face. Because we need more right, less wrong in our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)