I admit it. I love watching talent shows like American Idol and The X Factor. But tonight, I am really upset with two of The X Factor judges who chose not to do their job.
When you are a judge of anything, whether it is show dogs, purebred cattle, figure skating, singing, or even in a court of law, there is one thing you have in common with every other judge in any other situation. You are supposed to give your unbiased opinion when deciding who wins and who loses. And you can't opt out and say, "Gee, I can't make up my mind, so I will let someone else do it for me."
Tonight (December 8, 2011) on The X Factor, two judges failed to the job they were hired to do, and as a result the person who had the best performance on this night ended up being eliminated.
The bottom two after the previous night's audience vote were L.A. Reid's protegé, Marcus Canty, and Simon Cowell's protegé, Rachel Crow. Twice previously, Marcus was in the bottom two, but was rescued by the judges after his "save-me" performance. Rachel had never been in the bottom two since the start of the competition.
Marcus sang first. As usual, he put a lot of emotion into it, but he tried too hard and went flat several times. It was a good performance, but not his best. And he was waving his right arm throughout like a one-armed paper hanger.
Rachel, who was already crying before she sang, went out there and poured all her emotion into her performance, controlling it instead of letting it control her. It was the superior performance of the two and she seemed certain to go through to the semi-final — until the judging went crazy.
L.A. Reid (mentor of the male under-30 singers) forgot that he was supposed to judge the performance, not the person. He said Crow had had an amazing performance and that it had surprised him, but he had to go with "my man Marcus". In saying that, he all but admitted that he picked Marcus over Rachel only because Marcus was his protegé, not because Marcus sang best on this night.
Simon Cowell, who had mentored the girls under 30, has been a big supporter of 13-year-old Rachel, and he voted to send Marcus home. This was no surprise. On American Idol, he has never hesitated to be critical when one of his favourites sang badly. I am sure that, if Rachel had messed up, Simon would have reluctantly voted to keep Marcus.
Paula Abdul, who had no horse in this race (she had mentored the groups, which are now all gone from the show), admitted loving both performances, but decided to send Marcus home based on what she had heard on the night. Then it was Nicole Scherzinger's turn.
Nicole, who mentored the over-30s, started crying and said she didn't want to pick. If she had abstained from voting, that would have sent Marcus home. After dithering, she opted instead to choose Rachel to leave, doing so specifically to send the vote to "deadlock". This meant that, instead of the judges choosing who would leave based on Thursday night's singing, the person with the lowest number of audience votes from the Wednesday performances would be eliminated. This way, Nicole would not have to make a decision.
The result shocked everyone. Rachel Crow, one of the most gifted singers on the show from day one, was eliminated. The young teen collapsed to the stage in tears, the entire audience erupted and Rachel's mom rushed onto the stage to comfort her daughter. The judges, all looking very shocked, went up on stage as well. When asked to comment, Nicole was sobbing and couldn't speak, and as she turned away, she was booed by the crowd.
Clearly, The X Factor has to change this system, or read the riot act to its judges. L.A. Reid should have voted based on what he heard that night, not on favouritism. Nicole Scherzinger should have made a decision instead of dithering and then deliberately forcing a deadlock.
Can you imagine what would happen if judges judged like this in real life? What if the Westminster Kennel Club Best in Show judge says, "Gee, these seven dogs are all so good, I can't decide. I want the audience to choose Best in Show because I can't do it." Or at the Olympics figure skating event: "I can't choose, so I will leave it up to the other judges." Or a law court judge: "I can't make up my mind as to whether he's guilty or innocent, so I am going to let the courtroom audience decide instead."
Not going to happen!
As for Rachel Crow, I am absolutely certain that she will go on and have a very long, very successful career. And I hope she gets a million-dollar signing bonus to make up for the wrong done to her tonight. It's one thing to not sing well enough to win. It's a whole different situation when a flaw in the system prevents you from doing so.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Dancing With the Stars is Setting a Shining Example
That's right. The popular TV show "Dancing With the stars" is indeed setting a shining example, and I am not referring to the bling of the costumes or the mirror ball trophy.
It's because this show has proven that the ability to succeed, to strive and to achieve your goals has nothing to do with race, colour, ethnic background, physical shortcomings or sexual orientation. It shows that a goal does not always involve winning. It's an example to everyone that there is more to a person than what is on the outside.
Just think about it. DWTS has featured a wide assortment of folks whose only common denominator is that, for some reason, they have become famous for doing something. The show has featured actors, singers, Olympic athletes, comedians, models, politicians, entrepreneurs, television personalities and advocates for various causes. There was even a bull rider, a lawyer, a female boxer, a chef, a magician, a snowboarder, an astronaut and a race car driver. Ages have ranged from 16 to 70-something.
Not many shows can claim to have featured people who were very tall or short, fat people, skinny people, straight, gay and transgendered people, plus those who are American, Canadian, British, European, South American, Asian and Australian. The show has included people with backgrounds that are Japanese, Chinese, African, Hawaiian, Caucasian and probably a few more I can't recall, plus people with mixed racial heritage. One competitor was deaf, one had an artificial leg, some were cancer survivors, at least one was a victim of childhood abuse and one was disfigured. Some had metal plates and screws holding bones together from injuries suffered long before they began to dance, but none of them let that stop them from trying.
Does it matter?
Yes, but not for the reasons one might think. It matters because the audience found out who these competitors really were and learned to see them as real people. We saw J.R. Martinez as the person he is inside, not just the veteran with the burned face. We learned that a person can be beautiful regardless of physical appearance. We found out that a deaf person can dance well, that a victim of abuse can overcome a terrible start to life and become successful, and that dreams can come true, as they did for Jane Seymour, robbed of a ballet career by an injury while in her teens. We discovered that people can step outside their comfort zone and discover more about themselves than they ever dreamed possible. Who would have thought that a football player or a WWE wrestler could have a dancer hidden inside him?
I guess the bottom line is that DWTS celebrates both our differences and our similarities. It shows that, underneath, people share many of the same joys and sorrows, fears and courage, regardless of background or social standing. And it has shown us that, yes, Chaz Bono is a different kind of man, and Carson is outrageously gay, and J.R.'s face looks different, and that none of that really matters.
So kudos to Dancing With the Stars. You've entertained us, but you've also taught us to took past the outside of a person and to take on challenges without letting a fear of failure stop us from trying.
It's because this show has proven that the ability to succeed, to strive and to achieve your goals has nothing to do with race, colour, ethnic background, physical shortcomings or sexual orientation. It shows that a goal does not always involve winning. It's an example to everyone that there is more to a person than what is on the outside.
Just think about it. DWTS has featured a wide assortment of folks whose only common denominator is that, for some reason, they have become famous for doing something. The show has featured actors, singers, Olympic athletes, comedians, models, politicians, entrepreneurs, television personalities and advocates for various causes. There was even a bull rider, a lawyer, a female boxer, a chef, a magician, a snowboarder, an astronaut and a race car driver. Ages have ranged from 16 to 70-something.
Not many shows can claim to have featured people who were very tall or short, fat people, skinny people, straight, gay and transgendered people, plus those who are American, Canadian, British, European, South American, Asian and Australian. The show has included people with backgrounds that are Japanese, Chinese, African, Hawaiian, Caucasian and probably a few more I can't recall, plus people with mixed racial heritage. One competitor was deaf, one had an artificial leg, some were cancer survivors, at least one was a victim of childhood abuse and one was disfigured. Some had metal plates and screws holding bones together from injuries suffered long before they began to dance, but none of them let that stop them from trying.
Does it matter?
Yes, but not for the reasons one might think. It matters because the audience found out who these competitors really were and learned to see them as real people. We saw J.R. Martinez as the person he is inside, not just the veteran with the burned face. We learned that a person can be beautiful regardless of physical appearance. We found out that a deaf person can dance well, that a victim of abuse can overcome a terrible start to life and become successful, and that dreams can come true, as they did for Jane Seymour, robbed of a ballet career by an injury while in her teens. We discovered that people can step outside their comfort zone and discover more about themselves than they ever dreamed possible. Who would have thought that a football player or a WWE wrestler could have a dancer hidden inside him?
I guess the bottom line is that DWTS celebrates both our differences and our similarities. It shows that, underneath, people share many of the same joys and sorrows, fears and courage, regardless of background or social standing. And it has shown us that, yes, Chaz Bono is a different kind of man, and Carson is outrageously gay, and J.R.'s face looks different, and that none of that really matters.
So kudos to Dancing With the Stars. You've entertained us, but you've also taught us to took past the outside of a person and to take on challenges without letting a fear of failure stop us from trying.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Built-in obsolescence is driving me crazy!
A few years ago, I bit the bullet and replaced my aging Mac computer with a brand new iMac G5. I loved it! It was fast enough for me. It had lots of storage space. All my old, tried-and-true programs worked fine on it.
Computers kept evolving, but I had no reason to change. Everything still worked perfectly. I did have browser issues and had to switch from Netscape to Internet Explorer and finally to Firefox, but otherwise everything was copacetic. I had no need to keep changing operating systems or buying new software. Why should I? Everything I used every day was still suitable for my needs and my computer still had plenty of storage space, even after several years. The software still did everything I needed it to do.
Then the worst happened. Firefox changed one too many times. Suddenly going on-line was a big bundle of bombs! The final straw was having three years worth of emails totally vanish. I mean GONE. Eaten alive. Disappeared. Abducted by aliens. Panic city!
So, reluctantly, I upgraded to a new-to-me computer with Intel. Still a Mac, but despite being less than a year old, it was already obsolete of course. I had to get a replacement, because I needed Internet access for my on-line writing and artwork. Then, to my horror, I discovered that not a single one of my old programs would run on on the new machine!
As a result, I still have to use my older "new" computer for all my graphics, then transfer it over to the newer machine to post anything on-line. It's a pain in the butt (to put it mildly). I have to keep switching my printer back and forth between the two. The scanner is still with the older computer. Oh yes, and I still have my really old computer, because that one still runs floppy disks but won't burn CDs, and the middle-aged one will burn CDs but has no floppy drive. With tons of stuff still on floppies, I now have three computers, all needed for different reasons.
I understand changing technology. Honest! But I DO have a problem with forcing people to buy new just because a company decides to "upgrade" its product every year or two. If you have a 10-year-old car kept in good condition, there is no one saying you have to buy a new car just because because the roads have been upgraded. You can still drive your car on public roads. You don't have to replace perfectly good tires because someone has invented a newer, more perfect tire.
I have no problem with people wanting the newest and latest and fastest. I just want computer companies to recognize that many of us can't afford costly upgrades every few months or even every couple of years, and that when dramatic changes force customers to buy new equipment and then spend weeks redoing or transferring data, it costs us more than just the price of the computer or software — it costs us lost productivity and therefore even more money. When lack of money is the reason we didn't keep buying new to begin with, it's like a kick in the head.
Would it be so hard to create some kind of interface to allow old programs to run on newer computers, or new software to work on older computers? That should be a no-brainer for a society that can send men to the moon, build space stations, invent things like multi-function cell phones that allow you to take pictures and play games on the Internet, or build cars that can park themselves.
I can park my own car, thank you very much, and I have no desire to walk on the moon, but something that would let me keep using a computer and software for a reasonable amount of time without having to keep buying new would be a dream come true.
Computers kept evolving, but I had no reason to change. Everything still worked perfectly. I did have browser issues and had to switch from Netscape to Internet Explorer and finally to Firefox, but otherwise everything was copacetic. I had no need to keep changing operating systems or buying new software. Why should I? Everything I used every day was still suitable for my needs and my computer still had plenty of storage space, even after several years. The software still did everything I needed it to do.
Then the worst happened. Firefox changed one too many times. Suddenly going on-line was a big bundle of bombs! The final straw was having three years worth of emails totally vanish. I mean GONE. Eaten alive. Disappeared. Abducted by aliens. Panic city!
So, reluctantly, I upgraded to a new-to-me computer with Intel. Still a Mac, but despite being less than a year old, it was already obsolete of course. I had to get a replacement, because I needed Internet access for my on-line writing and artwork. Then, to my horror, I discovered that not a single one of my old programs would run on on the new machine!
As a result, I still have to use my older "new" computer for all my graphics, then transfer it over to the newer machine to post anything on-line. It's a pain in the butt (to put it mildly). I have to keep switching my printer back and forth between the two. The scanner is still with the older computer. Oh yes, and I still have my really old computer, because that one still runs floppy disks but won't burn CDs, and the middle-aged one will burn CDs but has no floppy drive. With tons of stuff still on floppies, I now have three computers, all needed for different reasons.
I understand changing technology. Honest! But I DO have a problem with forcing people to buy new just because a company decides to "upgrade" its product every year or two. If you have a 10-year-old car kept in good condition, there is no one saying you have to buy a new car just because because the roads have been upgraded. You can still drive your car on public roads. You don't have to replace perfectly good tires because someone has invented a newer, more perfect tire.
I have no problem with people wanting the newest and latest and fastest. I just want computer companies to recognize that many of us can't afford costly upgrades every few months or even every couple of years, and that when dramatic changes force customers to buy new equipment and then spend weeks redoing or transferring data, it costs us more than just the price of the computer or software — it costs us lost productivity and therefore even more money. When lack of money is the reason we didn't keep buying new to begin with, it's like a kick in the head.
Would it be so hard to create some kind of interface to allow old programs to run on newer computers, or new software to work on older computers? That should be a no-brainer for a society that can send men to the moon, build space stations, invent things like multi-function cell phones that allow you to take pictures and play games on the Internet, or build cars that can park themselves.
I can park my own car, thank you very much, and I have no desire to walk on the moon, but something that would let me keep using a computer and software for a reasonable amount of time without having to keep buying new would be a dream come true.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Judge calls beating his child "discipline"
On the news today, there was a video of a Texas man physically beating, manhandling and verbally abusing his teenage daughter. The incident took place in 2004, when the girl was 16 years old. The YouTube video of the beating shows the father striking his daughter Hillary at least 17 times on her arms, legs and body with heavy blows of a thick leather belt that has been doubled over. He is seen grabbing and restraining her so he can do a better job of flailing away on her while she screams and tries to avoid the blows. The scary part is that the man is a Family Court judge.
And here is what is even scarier. Judge William Adams told the media November 2 that the video "looks worse than it is" and said, "In my mind, I haven't done anything wrong other than discipline my child after she was caught stealing." He said he had found her downloading music and games that she hadn't paid for. But he told her he was sorry, and that makes everything okay now, doesn't it?
Here is a man whose job it is to make rulings on child abuse cases, but he sees nothing wrong with beating his daughter Hillary with all his strength and threatening to hit her in the face with a doubled-over leather belt! Gee, if he does this for downloading games and music on-line, I wonder what he would have done to her if she had come home drunk, missed curfew or went joyriding in his car?
One also has to wonder how many beatings she had undergone previously. There must have been a lot, otherwise she wouldn't have known to have a webcam set up to record him doing it.
Although Hillary secretly taped the beating, she waited seven years before posting on publicly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read between the lines here. Like most abused children, she probably thought A. "He's a judge and no one will believe me, even if I tape it;" B. "If I go public, it will destroy my family and it will be all my fault;" C. "My mother will never forgive me" and D. "If I make it public right away, I don't know what he might do in retaliation." Maybe she had tried to tell someone in the past and had not been believed.
In a story in the Daily Mail (UK), reporters Daniel Miller and Louise Boyle state that, "According to Judge William Adams, all children are 'fantasizers' and their testimony should just be ignored." Does this Adams guy even have a clue about the realities of child abuse? How on earth did he ever get elected as a judge, never mind one dealing with families?
Now here is the kicker. The local police chief said he has asked the state police to assist in investigating the video to see if anything criminal happened.
Hello! A guy beats his daughter with a doubled-over belt, using all his strength in each swing. The entire beating is caught on tape. There are witnesses to the beating. And yet there may not be anything criminal happening? Looks like this particular police chief needs the proverbial rocket scientist to point out what he can't seem to see: a teenage girl being beaten.
If it wasn't her father who beat her, would there be any question it was an assault? If he wasn't a respected Family Court judge, would there be any question it was an assault? If he was beating someone else's child instead of his own, would there be any question it was an assault?
It is no surprise to learn that Hillary's mother left the judge several years ago after undergoing years of abuse at his hands. She is one of the lucky ones. She is still alive. Many women who are abused by their spouses or boyfriends are maimed or killed when they try to leave an abusive relationship. According to the National Organization for Women, more than a thousand women are killed and 4.8-million are injured and/or raped by abusive partners every year in the USA alone. That's right, every year.
You did read that, didn't you? An average of three women die every day and nearly five million are injured each year by a boyfriend or husband. And don't forget, that is just in America.
Here's another stat for you from NOW: "Women who experience physical abuse as children are at a greater risk of victimization as adults." That means that beating your daughter could lead to her being abused by others for the rest of her life, assuming she doesn't either die while in a relationship or as a result of trying to leave an abusive partner.
I hope Hillary Adams escapes that fate. And I hope Judge Adams is never allowed to be in a courtroom again unless he is the one being charged.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Retailers keep rushing the season!
I remember, a few years ago, trying to buy a new winter jacket in late February. My winter jacket got damaged and needed to be replaced, so I went shopping for a new one.
Do you think I could find a winter jacket for sale anywhere? NOOOO! Every store had tucked all their winter stock away. The only outerwear available was for spring and summer!
To understand how crazy that is, you have to understand one thing. I live in Canada. It was bitterly cold and there was still plenty of snow on the ground, with more to come. February is one of the worst months of winter! But not a single store had winter clothes for sale.
Sadly, this is but one example of retailers rushing the season. Earlier this year, valentines hit the stores right after Christmas. Who is thinking of that when still getting over Christmas and New Year's? But it continues. Before Valentine's Day has arrived, Easter baskets and treats are up for sale. I started seeing back-to-school ads in July, Hallowe'en decorations in the first week of September, and (believe it or not) Christmas items on display in mid-October! Christmas decorations were out before people even started thinking about Hallowe'en.
Is that crazy, or what?
Now, I can understand shopping for Christmas gifts several months early. I do that myself. But who is in the mood to buy Christmas decorations in October? When kids get out of school in late June, do they really want to see back-to-school ads just two or three weeks later? I don't think so!
Try to buy a barbecue in late September, or a snowblower in March. Good luck with that!
People still need new winter boots in February and March. Barbecue season lasts well into October. Late winter snowstorms (at least here in Canada) usually arrive in April and even May. Like a famous baseball player once said, it ain't over 'til it's over, and when it comes to the seasons, that is so true. And most people prefer to get one holiday behind them before they have to start thinking about the next one, especially if it involves buying.
So, here's a note to retailers: if you really feel a huge need to get those next-season items on the shelves, go ahead and stock the new stuff. But please leave some of the other stuff up, too, so when we need new winter gloves in March, we can actually find some to buy.
Do you think I could find a winter jacket for sale anywhere? NOOOO! Every store had tucked all their winter stock away. The only outerwear available was for spring and summer!
To understand how crazy that is, you have to understand one thing. I live in Canada. It was bitterly cold and there was still plenty of snow on the ground, with more to come. February is one of the worst months of winter! But not a single store had winter clothes for sale.
Sadly, this is but one example of retailers rushing the season. Earlier this year, valentines hit the stores right after Christmas. Who is thinking of that when still getting over Christmas and New Year's? But it continues. Before Valentine's Day has arrived, Easter baskets and treats are up for sale. I started seeing back-to-school ads in July, Hallowe'en decorations in the first week of September, and (believe it or not) Christmas items on display in mid-October! Christmas decorations were out before people even started thinking about Hallowe'en.
Is that crazy, or what?
Now, I can understand shopping for Christmas gifts several months early. I do that myself. But who is in the mood to buy Christmas decorations in October? When kids get out of school in late June, do they really want to see back-to-school ads just two or three weeks later? I don't think so!
Try to buy a barbecue in late September, or a snowblower in March. Good luck with that!
People still need new winter boots in February and March. Barbecue season lasts well into October. Late winter snowstorms (at least here in Canada) usually arrive in April and even May. Like a famous baseball player once said, it ain't over 'til it's over, and when it comes to the seasons, that is so true. And most people prefer to get one holiday behind them before they have to start thinking about the next one, especially if it involves buying.
So, here's a note to retailers: if you really feel a huge need to get those next-season items on the shelves, go ahead and stock the new stuff. But please leave some of the other stuff up, too, so when we need new winter gloves in March, we can actually find some to buy.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The view from the other side of being employed
I am one of the "99 per cent" that is not getting rich working for major corporations, playing the stock market, getting lucrative government contracts or getting paid to sit in the Senate, Parliament or Congress a few weeks per year while getting perks like free flights on government jets.
I do not own a vacation home, expensive cars, a yacht, racehorses or sports teams. In fact, my car (bought used) is six years old and won't be replaced for probably another 10 years, if it lasts that long. I do own a house, but it is 50 years old and needs a lot of repairs that I can't afford to do.
I am unemployed for the first time in over 30 years, but I do not collect employment benefits or welfare. I am too old to get work. I am too young not to work. Thankfully, the mortgage is paid off on my home, but if I don't get a job soon, I may not be able to pay the taxes on it.
How many people in North America fit part or all of this profile? Is it 99 per cent? I really don't know, but I expect you are one of them, just like me.
So, this blog will be for folks like me: not rich, maybe working or, like me, looking unsuccessfully after being employed for many years.
For me, the job search has been very upsetting. I have skills, and I thought being "mature" meant I would be an asset to a company. I thought I would find a job quickly. Turns out that being over 50 is a kiss of death, no matter how many skills you have. For example:
1. I can use correct spelling and grammar. That is a rarity these days! Apparently, it doesn't matter anymore. Even newspapers and magazines have "mistake's" like this one.
2. I have no children that get sick and need me at home or who have to be picked up at school, taken to the dentist/doctor/therapist/whatever. This means I am free to work without that scheduling problem.
3. I won't get pregnant and take months or even a whole year off, and make you hold my job open for me until I come back.
4. I have worked enough years to know the importance of taking responsibility. I won't be late to work because I was out partying with friends the night before I have to work.
5. I know how to work with the public and with people of all ages and persuasions and economic and social levels, because I have already done it for many years.
6. I know how to complete a job efficiently and properly.
But guess what? NO ONE CARES. Apparently, those things don't matter. If one person doesn't work out, there's always someone else, right? And who cares if work is done properly and words are spelled right?
Employers see my grey hair and my age (can't hide that when your resume includes an employment history) and they make assumptions. What those are, I don't know, but I can guess. "Too old to work here." "Will want to retire too soon." "Won't be committed to a long-term job." "Won't want to work for minimum wage." "Won't be happy with a low-end job after working at a higher level in the past." "Over-educated for this type of job."
It's true that many of us can't do the heavy labour or 10-hour shifts on our feet anymore. We've already done those kinds of jobs for years. Let the students do that, since they are young and can handle it — just like we used to be able to. But please, when it comes to other kinds of jobs that an older person can do competently and well, give us first crack at them!
Yes, students need jobs to pay for university. But older people who have lost their jobs can lose everything if they don't find work. When a college student needs a job, it's to pay for tuition. When an unemployed older person needs a job, it's to pay for the basics: food and shelter and heat and water. We older folks need to be given a chance, not dismissed outright because of our age.
I do not own a vacation home, expensive cars, a yacht, racehorses or sports teams. In fact, my car (bought used) is six years old and won't be replaced for probably another 10 years, if it lasts that long. I do own a house, but it is 50 years old and needs a lot of repairs that I can't afford to do.
I am unemployed for the first time in over 30 years, but I do not collect employment benefits or welfare. I am too old to get work. I am too young not to work. Thankfully, the mortgage is paid off on my home, but if I don't get a job soon, I may not be able to pay the taxes on it.
How many people in North America fit part or all of this profile? Is it 99 per cent? I really don't know, but I expect you are one of them, just like me.
So, this blog will be for folks like me: not rich, maybe working or, like me, looking unsuccessfully after being employed for many years.
For me, the job search has been very upsetting. I have skills, and I thought being "mature" meant I would be an asset to a company. I thought I would find a job quickly. Turns out that being over 50 is a kiss of death, no matter how many skills you have. For example:
1. I can use correct spelling and grammar. That is a rarity these days! Apparently, it doesn't matter anymore. Even newspapers and magazines have "mistake's" like this one.
2. I have no children that get sick and need me at home or who have to be picked up at school, taken to the dentist/doctor/therapist/whatever. This means I am free to work without that scheduling problem.
3. I won't get pregnant and take months or even a whole year off, and make you hold my job open for me until I come back.
4. I have worked enough years to know the importance of taking responsibility. I won't be late to work because I was out partying with friends the night before I have to work.
5. I know how to work with the public and with people of all ages and persuasions and economic and social levels, because I have already done it for many years.
6. I know how to complete a job efficiently and properly.
But guess what? NO ONE CARES. Apparently, those things don't matter. If one person doesn't work out, there's always someone else, right? And who cares if work is done properly and words are spelled right?
Employers see my grey hair and my age (can't hide that when your resume includes an employment history) and they make assumptions. What those are, I don't know, but I can guess. "Too old to work here." "Will want to retire too soon." "Won't be committed to a long-term job." "Won't want to work for minimum wage." "Won't be happy with a low-end job after working at a higher level in the past." "Over-educated for this type of job."
It's true that many of us can't do the heavy labour or 10-hour shifts on our feet anymore. We've already done those kinds of jobs for years. Let the students do that, since they are young and can handle it — just like we used to be able to. But please, when it comes to other kinds of jobs that an older person can do competently and well, give us first crack at them!
Yes, students need jobs to pay for university. But older people who have lost their jobs can lose everything if they don't find work. When a college student needs a job, it's to pay for tuition. When an unemployed older person needs a job, it's to pay for the basics: food and shelter and heat and water. We older folks need to be given a chance, not dismissed outright because of our age.
Trick or treating has become obsolete
I heard recently that some politician suggested Hallowe'en should be eliminated because it encourages children to beg for candy from other people. He said children should be taught a good work ethic and that they need to learn that nothing is free.
This anti-Hallowe'en sentiment is nothing new. Religious groups of all denominations have been debating it for decades, since this is originally a pagan holiday. Today, churches even hold "alternate Hallowe'en" events — which is in itself kind of crazy, don't you think? If you don't like Hallowe'en, don't use the name. Hold a fancy dress party or something along that line, but don't go calling it a different kind of Hallowe'en party. Either it's Hallowe'en or it isn't.
But I do think Hallowe'en trick or treating may have run its course. It isn't what it used to be.
When I was a child, the whole point was to dress up in costumes and masks and go out after dark without any adults. Oh, and to collect candy, of course. But the real thrill was being out at night with other kids, all wearing costumes, with no adults to say go here or go there. It was the only night of the year where children took over the neighbourhood. No one took babies out, either. There was an unwritten rule that children had to be big enough to walk and carry a treat bag before they could go out trick or treating, usually about age 4. Littler ones were always accompanied by older kids, and children usually went out in a group with their friends because it was more fun that way, and it kept anyone from getting lost or too scared.
Many people made homemade treats, like fudge, cookies, candy apples and squares, or handed out oranges and apples. It wasn't just candy. Often, the children would be asked to come into the house so people could admire their costumes and try to guess who was behind the mask. After all, you only went trick or treating in your own neighbourhood, so often the adults handing out candy knew most of the local kids, and the children usually knew who lived in each home.
Fast forward a couple of decades. Some parents began driving carloads of kids into other parts of town to collect more candy, instead of staying in their own neighbourhoods. Warped people began, for their own twisted reasons, to put pins and razor blades into fruit and baked goods, so the kids had to have their loot bags inspected after they got home to ensure the food was safe. In response, people had to quit giving out traditional treats and switch to commercially wrapped items because, if they didn't, whatever they gave the children would be thrown out later.
Parents began to fear for their children's safety and started accompanying them as they went door to door. (Boy, that sure must be fun for the kids.) And no longer could children go indoors at any of the houses, for fear they might be kidnapped or have who knows what done to them. Now, kids even get their bags of treats stolen from them by other kids or even adults. That was unheard of when I was a child.
Nowadays, there are far fewer children going door to door on Hallowe'en night anyway. It just isn't the big deal that it used to be. Too many parents feel it just isn't safe. As well, many people are having trouble just getting by these days without having to buy extra candy to hand out to children. So I think the time has come to bring an end to trick or treating. But that doesn't mean you cancel Hallowe'en!
I think the focus should switch to putting up Hallowe'en decorations, holding parties and having fun dressing up in costumes. I lived in one community where every school holds a Hallowe'en costume parade thorough their neighbourhood and visits places like retirement residences and homes for the aged. Most schools have costume parties and dances. Many youth groups hold pumpkin-carving contests.
There are plenty of ways to celebrate Hallowe'en without sending children out door to door to beg for candy. So let's keep Hallowe'en, but call a halt to trick or treating. It was fun while it lasted, but it's time has ended.
This anti-Hallowe'en sentiment is nothing new. Religious groups of all denominations have been debating it for decades, since this is originally a pagan holiday. Today, churches even hold "alternate Hallowe'en" events — which is in itself kind of crazy, don't you think? If you don't like Hallowe'en, don't use the name. Hold a fancy dress party or something along that line, but don't go calling it a different kind of Hallowe'en party. Either it's Hallowe'en or it isn't.
But I do think Hallowe'en trick or treating may have run its course. It isn't what it used to be.
When I was a child, the whole point was to dress up in costumes and masks and go out after dark without any adults. Oh, and to collect candy, of course. But the real thrill was being out at night with other kids, all wearing costumes, with no adults to say go here or go there. It was the only night of the year where children took over the neighbourhood. No one took babies out, either. There was an unwritten rule that children had to be big enough to walk and carry a treat bag before they could go out trick or treating, usually about age 4. Littler ones were always accompanied by older kids, and children usually went out in a group with their friends because it was more fun that way, and it kept anyone from getting lost or too scared.
Many people made homemade treats, like fudge, cookies, candy apples and squares, or handed out oranges and apples. It wasn't just candy. Often, the children would be asked to come into the house so people could admire their costumes and try to guess who was behind the mask. After all, you only went trick or treating in your own neighbourhood, so often the adults handing out candy knew most of the local kids, and the children usually knew who lived in each home.
Fast forward a couple of decades. Some parents began driving carloads of kids into other parts of town to collect more candy, instead of staying in their own neighbourhoods. Warped people began, for their own twisted reasons, to put pins and razor blades into fruit and baked goods, so the kids had to have their loot bags inspected after they got home to ensure the food was safe. In response, people had to quit giving out traditional treats and switch to commercially wrapped items because, if they didn't, whatever they gave the children would be thrown out later.
Parents began to fear for their children's safety and started accompanying them as they went door to door. (Boy, that sure must be fun for the kids.) And no longer could children go indoors at any of the houses, for fear they might be kidnapped or have who knows what done to them. Now, kids even get their bags of treats stolen from them by other kids or even adults. That was unheard of when I was a child.
Nowadays, there are far fewer children going door to door on Hallowe'en night anyway. It just isn't the big deal that it used to be. Too many parents feel it just isn't safe. As well, many people are having trouble just getting by these days without having to buy extra candy to hand out to children. So I think the time has come to bring an end to trick or treating. But that doesn't mean you cancel Hallowe'en!
I think the focus should switch to putting up Hallowe'en decorations, holding parties and having fun dressing up in costumes. I lived in one community where every school holds a Hallowe'en costume parade thorough their neighbourhood and visits places like retirement residences and homes for the aged. Most schools have costume parties and dances. Many youth groups hold pumpkin-carving contests.
There are plenty of ways to celebrate Hallowe'en without sending children out door to door to beg for candy. So let's keep Hallowe'en, but call a halt to trick or treating. It was fun while it lasted, but it's time has ended.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Sen. Eaton wants to boot the beaver!
Conservative Senator Nicole Eaton wants the polar bear to replace the beaver as one of Canada's official emblems.
Apparently, the beaver — chosen for its strong work ethic, devotion to family and its role in the exploration of Canada (albeit without the beavers' permission, since they were being killed, skinned and turned into top hats) — is nothing by a "defective rat" that causes havoc with its dam-building and tree-felling, she says. As well, Sen. Eaton says, the beaver is a symbol of the past and a "nineteenth-century has-been."
She thinks Canada would be better represented by the polar bear, which she calls noble.
"The polar bear is the world’s largest terrestrial carnivore and Canada’s most majestic and splendid mammal,” she said.
Bad idea, Sen. Eaton. Big and beautiful and wild, yes. But noble?
Male polar bears will hunt down, kill and even eat polar bear cubs, including their own. Polar bears will hunt, kill and eat people, too, given the chance. They are apex predators that fear nothing. True, they are beautiful animals, but why choose them to represent us?
Besides, the bear already is a symbol of Russia. Not a good choice for Canada!
If enough Canadians actually agree that think the beaver has to go (which frankly would surprise me), what other alternatives are there?
1. The Blue Jay. Loud, raucous, annoying, doesn't do much except steal from other birds. Oh, wait, that would be a symbol of the government, not Canada. Scratch that idea.
2. The Newfoundland Dog. Big, loveable, likes to save lives, but its bark is worse than its bite. Mind you, that can be a good thing. Canada is not an aggressive nation trying to take over other countries or their resources, but it does go in to try to save the day. A Newfoundland dog would be good, except for its name. Somehow I don't thing the rest of the provinces and territories would appreciate it.
3. The Canadian Horse. No, not any old Canadian horse, THE Canadian Horse. This is Canada's native horse breed. It has been here since the arrival of the French in Quebec in the 1600s and helped develop this country. It's a hard-working, calm, intelligent breed of horse that can do anything: plough fields, pull buggies, chase cattle, compete in jumping events, and so on. Canadian Horses contributed to the development of other breeds such as the Morgan, Saddlebred, Standardbred, Missouri Fox Trotter and Tennessee Walker. Canadian Horses served as mounts in the American Civil War and Boer War, and were exported to work on the sugar plantations in the West Indies. And the Canadian Horse has an advantage over the polar bear: it won't try to eat you!
But really, what's wrong with the beaver anyway? It's cute, it's intelligent, it works hard and it is resilient enough to have survived near-extinction by fur traders and trappers. I agree with NDP MP Pat Martin, who objects to Sen. Eaton's idea. He says, "You can't beat a beaver for stoic hard work and industry, a perfect metaphor for our pioneering Canadian spirit."
Let's just keep the beaver. Sen. Eaton can go up north and cuddle a polar bear if she wants. Of course, if she tries, there could be one less senator coming up with silly ideas to change a Canadian tradition.
Apparently, the beaver — chosen for its strong work ethic, devotion to family and its role in the exploration of Canada (albeit without the beavers' permission, since they were being killed, skinned and turned into top hats) — is nothing by a "defective rat" that causes havoc with its dam-building and tree-felling, she says. As well, Sen. Eaton says, the beaver is a symbol of the past and a "nineteenth-century has-been."
She thinks Canada would be better represented by the polar bear, which she calls noble.
"The polar bear is the world’s largest terrestrial carnivore and Canada’s most majestic and splendid mammal,” she said.
Bad idea, Sen. Eaton. Big and beautiful and wild, yes. But noble?
Male polar bears will hunt down, kill and even eat polar bear cubs, including their own. Polar bears will hunt, kill and eat people, too, given the chance. They are apex predators that fear nothing. True, they are beautiful animals, but why choose them to represent us?
Besides, the bear already is a symbol of Russia. Not a good choice for Canada!
If enough Canadians actually agree that think the beaver has to go (which frankly would surprise me), what other alternatives are there?
1. The Blue Jay. Loud, raucous, annoying, doesn't do much except steal from other birds. Oh, wait, that would be a symbol of the government, not Canada. Scratch that idea.
2. The Newfoundland Dog. Big, loveable, likes to save lives, but its bark is worse than its bite. Mind you, that can be a good thing. Canada is not an aggressive nation trying to take over other countries or their resources, but it does go in to try to save the day. A Newfoundland dog would be good, except for its name. Somehow I don't thing the rest of the provinces and territories would appreciate it.
3. The Canadian Horse. No, not any old Canadian horse, THE Canadian Horse. This is Canada's native horse breed. It has been here since the arrival of the French in Quebec in the 1600s and helped develop this country. It's a hard-working, calm, intelligent breed of horse that can do anything: plough fields, pull buggies, chase cattle, compete in jumping events, and so on. Canadian Horses contributed to the development of other breeds such as the Morgan, Saddlebred, Standardbred, Missouri Fox Trotter and Tennessee Walker. Canadian Horses served as mounts in the American Civil War and Boer War, and were exported to work on the sugar plantations in the West Indies. And the Canadian Horse has an advantage over the polar bear: it won't try to eat you!
But really, what's wrong with the beaver anyway? It's cute, it's intelligent, it works hard and it is resilient enough to have survived near-extinction by fur traders and trappers. I agree with NDP MP Pat Martin, who objects to Sen. Eaton's idea. He says, "You can't beat a beaver for stoic hard work and industry, a perfect metaphor for our pioneering Canadian spirit."
Let's just keep the beaver. Sen. Eaton can go up north and cuddle a polar bear if she wants. Of course, if she tries, there could be one less senator coming up with silly ideas to change a Canadian tradition.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Getting effing tired of bad language
It's time for one of my new pet peeves to make its presence felt. It's about language.
I am the first to admit that I can swear pretty well, when I want. to. But it seems to me that swearing is going to new lows these days. Why is it that so many Facebook posts use the infamous F-word as a modifier for absolutely everything? Why do so many people feel the need to fill every sentence with F-this and F-that?
When has it become acceptable to call a friend, sister or even your mother a bitch or a whore (or ho — maybe they can't spell)? That is just plain disrespectful.
Even little kids are using filthy language, and they are (I hope!) too young to understand the meaning of the words they are using. Not that this surprises me, hearing how their parents talk.
I remember visiting a high school a few years ago and being shocked, not so much by the language being used, but by the fact that it was being used everywhere without anyone stopping it, and by the number of effing times these effing kids used this effing bad language in front of their effing teachers. (See what I mean?)
I expect these kids will be in for a shock when they enter the workplace and find out that this is not acceptable, and that it is harder to clean up their potty mouths than they thought it would be. While this might be allowed in some kinds of businesses, that is not always the case. In some offices, this kind of language would earn a reprimand or even worse. If you are applying for a job, a filthy mouth could prevent you from being hired, or result in you not being kept on staff when your probation period on the job ends.
People don't seem to realize that using this kind of language makes them sound ignorant. Used too often, the shock value is gone anyway, so why do it?
Sure, my generation swore. We still do. But most of us had enough sense to pick our spots, so to speak. Cussing after catching your fingers in the door or dropping a load of textbooks on your foot was one thing. While not acceptable, it was still a case of "cause and effect" and not intended to offend anyone. Swearing at and around teachers, authority figures and parents was different. You learned not to do it because, for one thing, it just wasn't worth the punishment. Usually, one dose of being forced to wash your mouth out with soap (or, for me, watching someone else who was forced to do it, which was almost as disgusting) cleaned up a case of potty mouth real quick. If not, a second or third dose did the trick.
People are bound to pull out the "freedom of speech" card here. But you know what? Unless you are living in a cultural group where this is acceptable, talking like that will just make you sound stupid, unimaginative, uneducated, disrespectful and bad-mannered to a lot of people.
I am the first to admit that I can swear pretty well, when I want. to. But it seems to me that swearing is going to new lows these days. Why is it that so many Facebook posts use the infamous F-word as a modifier for absolutely everything? Why do so many people feel the need to fill every sentence with F-this and F-that?
When has it become acceptable to call a friend, sister or even your mother a bitch or a whore (or ho — maybe they can't spell)? That is just plain disrespectful.
Even little kids are using filthy language, and they are (I hope!) too young to understand the meaning of the words they are using. Not that this surprises me, hearing how their parents talk.
I remember visiting a high school a few years ago and being shocked, not so much by the language being used, but by the fact that it was being used everywhere without anyone stopping it, and by the number of effing times these effing kids used this effing bad language in front of their effing teachers. (See what I mean?)
I expect these kids will be in for a shock when they enter the workplace and find out that this is not acceptable, and that it is harder to clean up their potty mouths than they thought it would be. While this might be allowed in some kinds of businesses, that is not always the case. In some offices, this kind of language would earn a reprimand or even worse. If you are applying for a job, a filthy mouth could prevent you from being hired, or result in you not being kept on staff when your probation period on the job ends.
People don't seem to realize that using this kind of language makes them sound ignorant. Used too often, the shock value is gone anyway, so why do it?
Sure, my generation swore. We still do. But most of us had enough sense to pick our spots, so to speak. Cussing after catching your fingers in the door or dropping a load of textbooks on your foot was one thing. While not acceptable, it was still a case of "cause and effect" and not intended to offend anyone. Swearing at and around teachers, authority figures and parents was different. You learned not to do it because, for one thing, it just wasn't worth the punishment. Usually, one dose of being forced to wash your mouth out with soap (or, for me, watching someone else who was forced to do it, which was almost as disgusting) cleaned up a case of potty mouth real quick. If not, a second or third dose did the trick.
People are bound to pull out the "freedom of speech" card here. But you know what? Unless you are living in a cultural group where this is acceptable, talking like that will just make you sound stupid, unimaginative, uneducated, disrespectful and bad-mannered to a lot of people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)