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.
Monday, October 31, 2011
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)