Mother May I, Simon Says and Hopscotch are still fun games to play

Remember the games that children played before computers and television took over? Many people today have never played them, yet they are just as much fun, challenging and easy to learn as they ever were.

Two favourites from my childhood were Mother May I and Simon Says. As today's population ages, both games have a big advantage in that they can be played by people of all ages and abilities.

Like many old-fashioned children's games, Mother May I and Simon Says don’t require any kind of equipment. Simon Says is even a good game for elderly adults in long term care facilities, since it can be played by anyone, doesn’t require any physical exertion and helps keep the mind alert.

In both games, a group of people is led by a single person who gives the commands. A player who gets too caught up in the game to listen to the commands will end up making a mistake and either be eliminated or have to return to the beginning.

To play Simon Says, the leader (“Simon”) gives a series of commands that the other players must follow. For example, “Simon says touch your nose” or “Simon says clap your hands”. In another version of this game, Simon may say "Simon says do this" and demonstrate the action required, such as twirling around, patting the top of the head, or whatever.

The trick is that each command must be preceded by “Simon says”. If Simon just says “Touch your head” or "Do this" then players must remain still. A player that follows a command without “Simon says” is eliminated. The game ends when the last person is out.

This is a fun game, and it is easy to get tripped up and do what Simon says even if the magic words were not said.

Like Simon Says, Mother May I uses a leader ("Mother") who gives permission to move. The children line up about 20 or 30 feet away from Mother and one at a time each child asks to move forward by asking, “Mother, may I take a step?”

Mother, who has her back to the children, then answers “Yes, you may” or “No, you may not”. In some versions, Mother specifies how many steps and what kind — for example, “Yes, you may take two giant steps” or “Yes, you may take one baby step”.

The key here is that when the answer is yes, it must be “Yes, you may.” If “you may” is not said, the person is not supposed to move. If the child steps without hearing “you may” he or she must return to the starting line. The child reaching Mother first is the winner and, if the game continues, the winner is Mother for the next session.

Rules in this game vary from place to place. In another version, Mother tells the child to move — for example, “Vicky, you may take two baby steps” — and the child must respond “Mother, may I?” and then wait for “Yes, you may” or No, you may not”. If the child takes the steps without asking “Mother, may I?” he or she is either out or must return to the starting line.

Even people in wheelchairs can play by modifying a request from taking steps to moving a certain distance. Since each person has individual commands, children and adults of all abilities can take part in the same game.

Simon Says and Mother May I can be played by almost anyone, since physical speed and strength are not factors required to play them well. But a quick mind is an asset, and playing often is likely to improve one's ability to recognize critical information contained in verbal language. Simon says listen and yes, you may win!

Another popular game from my childhood is Hopscotch. This game has been popular with children for centuries and daties to the time of the Romans. It uses a grid or pattern pattern drawn in the dirt with a stick, or on a hard surface using chalk or red ochre. There are many ways to play, but the basic idea of the game is to toss a marker into the first square of the grid, then hop through the grid without hopping in a square with a marker in it, turn around and hop back. The marker has to land inside the correct square and be picked up on the way back. The player then tosses the marker into the second square and repeats. If the marker ends up outside the proper square or if the player puts a hand or other foot down for balance, steps in a square with a marker in it or steps outside the pattern or on a line, the turn is over. That person’s marker must stay in the last square it was in, and the next player has a turn. Generally, the first to get his or her marker all the way to Home wins.

There are many different versions of hopscotch. The traditional Canadian game uses a grid consisting of three single blocks, then two side by side, another single, another pair, a single, and Home, which is a large semi-circle at the top. Each square is numbered: 1, 2, 3, then left one is 4, right one is 5, then 6, left 7, right 8, then 9, then Home.

Each child finds a small flat stone, a metal bottle cap or, in the days before plastic bottles became common, a small piece of weathered coloured glass to use as a marker. Glass was favoured because it didn’t roll or bounce as much as rock. Flat pebbles such as sandstone, mica and shale were used if glass was unavailable, but anything with enough weight could be used, such as shells or large buttons.

Each player must toss his marker in one square at a time, hop successfully through the grid and back, then toss into the next numbered square. The last and hardest toss is into Home. All throws have to be made from the starting position in front of square 1.

If there are three or four playing, the game is much more difficult, since more squares have markers in them. The first player to successfully throw his marker into Home, then negotiate the grid to retrieve it and get back to the start is the winner.

There are several ways to play the Canadian version. All the markers can be placed in square 1 to begin the game, or the grid can start empty, so each player’s first toss is into 1. Sometimes a line is drawn a foot or so back of the first square, and all jumps and all throws have to start from behind this line. If children of different ages or heights are playing, there can be two start lines, one close to the first square for smaller players and one further back for taller players.

Occasionally the grid is drawn differently, with a single square, then a double, then single, double, single, double, home. Permanent grids painted on playgrounds or gym floors may be different again.

There are many other ways to play hopscotch indifferent parts of the world. In Indonesia, the game is called One-Leg Jump and the squares are side by side. In Australia and some other countries, there is a version called Snail Hopscotch, in which the basic design is a segmented spiral.

In some countries, Home is a rest area where the player can pause before hopping back through. Sometimes there are squares designated as neutral areas where two feet can be used. Sometimes the squares are not numbered, and sometimes the player has to switch feet for the return trip, or even jump through backwards coming home.

Of course, children can make up their own variations and combinations. But however it is played, hopscotch is a great fitness activity and fun for children of all ages.

Judges on The X Factor need to remember their job

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.