Nick Crews' bitterly disappointed letter to his three children was so riveting, why not try to visualize a child's bitterly disappointed letter to their parents?
For full effect, see full letter here: http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/nick-crews-bitterly-disappointed-dad-blasts-three-kids-171712177.html
Dear Father Dearest (and presumably Mum too if she's around),
I can now tell you that I for one, and I sense my siblings feel the same, have had enough of being forced to live through the never-ending bad dream of boring lectures and domestic choredom. I want to hear no more from any of you until, if you feel inclined, you have success or an achievement or a REALISTIC plan to cease your relentless judging of others. I don't want to see others burdened any more with your miserable statements- it's not as if they ever asked of your opinion in the first place- far less re-iterated. So I ask you to spare others further unhappiness. If you think that I have been unfair in what I have said, by all means try to persuade me to change my mind. But you won't do it by simply whinging and saying you're always right. You'll have to come up with meatheaded reasons to demolish my points and build a case for yourself. If that isn't possible or you simply can't be bothered, then the case should be put to rest.
We are constantly regaled with chapter and verse of the happy, successful lives of the families of your friends and relatives. I wonder if you realise how we feel — constantly being compared to the so-called perfect children of others who have built up careers in the more desirable, money-making professions. We don't ask for your sympathy or understanding — we know what a collossal disappointment it is to not be a part of society's driven, its' winners. Having done our best — probably misguidedly — to win spelling bees and science trophies with our feeble minds and lop-sided baking soda volcanoes, we naturally hoped that it would result in a cold half smile of appreciation or a goood old fashioned loving jab on the chin.
It is obvious that none of you has the faintest notion of the bitter disappointment the two of you has in your own way dished out to us. We are seeing the miserable death throes of familial love through constant guilt mongering and episodes of intermittent self pity.
I am bitterly, bitterly disappointed.
Children
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Parenthood Is Not For Everyone
If you're tired of smarmy Hallmark style made for tv parent loving television, does the internet have a treat for you: an email message from a bitterly disappointed retired British nuclear submarine commander Nick Crews has just gone viral.
The full text can be found online. It is a unique and delicious medley of condescension, judgement, acidic social commentary of the old school variety, self-pity and self-congratulation, all in one. There is sufficient stuffy language to go above and beyond regular chiding or finger-wagging and goes all out for a no-holds barred 'you are what's wrong with society today' one-two kick to it.
To summarize, Father Dearest's main issue with his offspring is primarily with their underachievement in the professional world and their domestic ineptitude. There is an allusion to several marriages near the end of the letter, which is probably where the domestic ineptitude comes from, so it doesn't appear to be a reference to their ability to fold napkins.
The biggest concern, of course, is for the grandchildren, the precious offspring of their seemingly less cherished offspring- it appears that the love of one's fruit of the loins skips a generation and goes directly to the next group. It is the opinion of Father Dearest, and Mum too, because presumably he speaks for her as well, no doubt a sign of the domestic non-ineptitude that he possesses, that they are not providing properly for their futures.
Father Dearest takes particular offense at not being consulted in the decision making process of his children's lives, which is by no means to blame for the poor quality of the decisions taken- at one point, he describes their events as copulation-driven- and how his unsolicited advice is not taken. He also doesn't want to hear more 'whinges and tidings of more rotten news', while he goes on to whinge of his own situation of not being able to brag to his friends about his children. It seems that whinging is a popular family activity, but Father Dearest will not tolerate it in others no more than he would tolerate one of them joining in on his Solitaire game.
Father Dearest is bitterly disappointed at having gone to such great expense to educate his three children who have apparently accomplished nothing worth mentioning at a garden party. Such a pity.
There are probably parents of children with meth labs in nurseries who have less disappointed parents than this.
Many of us have been fed with the idea that parental love is unconditional; that, as long as we tried to be as good as we possibly could, as long as we were law-abiding and healthy, we would be loved and accepted by our family. Like having your head held under icy water, this new take on parenthood is somewhat refreshing. And it reinforces that idea that parenthood may not be for everyone.
Children of the world owe a debt to Nick Crews today. We can all be happy and rejoice that he's not our father.
The full text can be found online. It is a unique and delicious medley of condescension, judgement, acidic social commentary of the old school variety, self-pity and self-congratulation, all in one. There is sufficient stuffy language to go above and beyond regular chiding or finger-wagging and goes all out for a no-holds barred 'you are what's wrong with society today' one-two kick to it.
To summarize, Father Dearest's main issue with his offspring is primarily with their underachievement in the professional world and their domestic ineptitude. There is an allusion to several marriages near the end of the letter, which is probably where the domestic ineptitude comes from, so it doesn't appear to be a reference to their ability to fold napkins.
The biggest concern, of course, is for the grandchildren, the precious offspring of their seemingly less cherished offspring- it appears that the love of one's fruit of the loins skips a generation and goes directly to the next group. It is the opinion of Father Dearest, and Mum too, because presumably he speaks for her as well, no doubt a sign of the domestic non-ineptitude that he possesses, that they are not providing properly for their futures.
Father Dearest takes particular offense at not being consulted in the decision making process of his children's lives, which is by no means to blame for the poor quality of the decisions taken- at one point, he describes their events as copulation-driven- and how his unsolicited advice is not taken. He also doesn't want to hear more 'whinges and tidings of more rotten news', while he goes on to whinge of his own situation of not being able to brag to his friends about his children. It seems that whinging is a popular family activity, but Father Dearest will not tolerate it in others no more than he would tolerate one of them joining in on his Solitaire game.
Father Dearest is bitterly disappointed at having gone to such great expense to educate his three children who have apparently accomplished nothing worth mentioning at a garden party. Such a pity.
There are probably parents of children with meth labs in nurseries who have less disappointed parents than this.
Many of us have been fed with the idea that parental love is unconditional; that, as long as we tried to be as good as we possibly could, as long as we were law-abiding and healthy, we would be loved and accepted by our family. Like having your head held under icy water, this new take on parenthood is somewhat refreshing. And it reinforces that idea that parenthood may not be for everyone.
Children of the world owe a debt to Nick Crews today. We can all be happy and rejoice that he's not our father.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
TV Fall 2012 reviews so far
With the NHL lockout and a lot of new time on my hands, I've decided to reconnect with an old friend of mine: television. It hasn't been an altogether smooth experience. Let's begin with a few observations:
The Outdoor Life Network OLN: do any of these shows take place outside anymore? What's with the people fighting over storage space? How does this qualify as outdoorsy? Wasn't this network famous for hunting, fishing and other outdoor manly type ventures that you could ironically watch from the comfort of your own home?
The History Channel: does anything on this channel occur in the past? Because that's traditionally where history is placed. This channel took a lot of flack for being the 'Hitler Channel' because it used to play Nazi documentaries ad nauseum, which was a great ratings grabber, but something of a narrow view on history. It appears that the channel has decided to do away with this altogether and go straight to shows that look like they should be on OLN: trucking, commercial fishing, dangerous professions. The new motto is that History will be made. But the point is that history HAS been made and generally, a network entirely devoted to history should focus on the past.
The Learning Channel (TLC): it seems like this channel exists so that it can 'learn ya'. And not in the strictest educational sense, or else the educational system is in way more trouble than I initially feared. The home network of reality series on polygamists, Amish, unusually large families and midgets is maybe learning us something but the lesson always seems to be that people can be pretty different yet the same. Unfortunately, the sameness has less to do with the good things we're capable of and more with our pettiness and silliness. And if anyone thinks that Honey Boo Boo is here to learn us something good, I think I hear the hoofs of one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse approaching- or at least I hope.
Ok, so tv has gotten a little weird. Some of their channels are a bit less than perfectly named. There are a ton of maudlin new shows on the air which likely won't last more than a season because their silly weak premises are all things that we've seen before, cheeky doctors who can't manage their personal lives, sexy dramas about people in dangerous professions and dysfunctional sweet families. Yawn. But there are a few worth watching in all this:
Person of Interest (this is a must-see): This compelling drama asks many philosophical and moral questions about security, surveillance and vigilante justice. It also probes into fundamental questions about human nature, like our inherent goodness or badness, and the secret around 'the machine' is worthy of any sci-fi enthusiast's half-skewed vision of a bleak future. The machine has almost become a character in this series, opening it up to more questions. It also features a fair amount of ass-kicking from a man in a suit. The only possible flaw in this series is that it over-promises and under-delivers, something it has been able to avoid so far, but could be a potential pitfall in the future.
Elementary: the frenetic energy of the new Sherlock Holmes makes his brilliant deductions irritating and fascinating all at the same time. Arrogant, insensitive and utterly devoted to finding out the truth, the audience is thankful to have the calm female Watson on the scene. The costume choices for the new Watson seem absolutely determined to remove Lucy Liu's former sex bomb status by disguising her as one of New York City's bag ladies. No matter. It works and the tension/chemistry of the two main characters which has always been played on between two male leads is promising with one male and a female- but we expect things to stay platonic, just the same.
Vegas: Anyone who's enjoyed watching John Wayne films with dad is going to like this series. The mix of cowboys and gangsters is irresistible and fun to watch. The feel of the era is a little all over the place. It claims to be 1960s, but some of those gangsters look more 1930s and those kitschy showgirls aren't helping any. There aren't a lot of surprises and you will probably find yourself calling everyone a wise guy afterwards, but you could do a whole lot worse.
666 Park Avenue: It's interesting, but there are many potential pitfalls in this show. The naive young couple who moves into the Drake Hotel to become full-time live-in concierges are entirely uninteresting, so the audience gets to watch interesting things happen to them. The young woman's boundless curiosity is seemingly never counterbalanced by a healthy fear for her life as she explores the mysteries of the world's creepiest laundry room. The basement lit by a single light bulb on a string is usually fair warning that something horrific is about to happen. And horrific, unexplainable things do happen in this show. The potential pitfall of this show will happen if they try too hard to explain everything. There's a supernatural quality to this show that appears more kitschy than fascinating at times, yet works because of the creepy authority of Terry O'Quinn. But remember, even he couldn't save Lost.
The Outdoor Life Network OLN: do any of these shows take place outside anymore? What's with the people fighting over storage space? How does this qualify as outdoorsy? Wasn't this network famous for hunting, fishing and other outdoor manly type ventures that you could ironically watch from the comfort of your own home?
The History Channel: does anything on this channel occur in the past? Because that's traditionally where history is placed. This channel took a lot of flack for being the 'Hitler Channel' because it used to play Nazi documentaries ad nauseum, which was a great ratings grabber, but something of a narrow view on history. It appears that the channel has decided to do away with this altogether and go straight to shows that look like they should be on OLN: trucking, commercial fishing, dangerous professions. The new motto is that History will be made. But the point is that history HAS been made and generally, a network entirely devoted to history should focus on the past.
The Learning Channel (TLC): it seems like this channel exists so that it can 'learn ya'. And not in the strictest educational sense, or else the educational system is in way more trouble than I initially feared. The home network of reality series on polygamists, Amish, unusually large families and midgets is maybe learning us something but the lesson always seems to be that people can be pretty different yet the same. Unfortunately, the sameness has less to do with the good things we're capable of and more with our pettiness and silliness. And if anyone thinks that Honey Boo Boo is here to learn us something good, I think I hear the hoofs of one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse approaching- or at least I hope.
Ok, so tv has gotten a little weird. Some of their channels are a bit less than perfectly named. There are a ton of maudlin new shows on the air which likely won't last more than a season because their silly weak premises are all things that we've seen before, cheeky doctors who can't manage their personal lives, sexy dramas about people in dangerous professions and dysfunctional sweet families. Yawn. But there are a few worth watching in all this:
Person of Interest (this is a must-see): This compelling drama asks many philosophical and moral questions about security, surveillance and vigilante justice. It also probes into fundamental questions about human nature, like our inherent goodness or badness, and the secret around 'the machine' is worthy of any sci-fi enthusiast's half-skewed vision of a bleak future. The machine has almost become a character in this series, opening it up to more questions. It also features a fair amount of ass-kicking from a man in a suit. The only possible flaw in this series is that it over-promises and under-delivers, something it has been able to avoid so far, but could be a potential pitfall in the future.
Elementary: the frenetic energy of the new Sherlock Holmes makes his brilliant deductions irritating and fascinating all at the same time. Arrogant, insensitive and utterly devoted to finding out the truth, the audience is thankful to have the calm female Watson on the scene. The costume choices for the new Watson seem absolutely determined to remove Lucy Liu's former sex bomb status by disguising her as one of New York City's bag ladies. No matter. It works and the tension/chemistry of the two main characters which has always been played on between two male leads is promising with one male and a female- but we expect things to stay platonic, just the same.
Vegas: Anyone who's enjoyed watching John Wayne films with dad is going to like this series. The mix of cowboys and gangsters is irresistible and fun to watch. The feel of the era is a little all over the place. It claims to be 1960s, but some of those gangsters look more 1930s and those kitschy showgirls aren't helping any. There aren't a lot of surprises and you will probably find yourself calling everyone a wise guy afterwards, but you could do a whole lot worse.
666 Park Avenue: It's interesting, but there are many potential pitfalls in this show. The naive young couple who moves into the Drake Hotel to become full-time live-in concierges are entirely uninteresting, so the audience gets to watch interesting things happen to them. The young woman's boundless curiosity is seemingly never counterbalanced by a healthy fear for her life as she explores the mysteries of the world's creepiest laundry room. The basement lit by a single light bulb on a string is usually fair warning that something horrific is about to happen. And horrific, unexplainable things do happen in this show. The potential pitfall of this show will happen if they try too hard to explain everything. There's a supernatural quality to this show that appears more kitschy than fascinating at times, yet works because of the creepy authority of Terry O'Quinn. But remember, even he couldn't save Lost.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Not So Revolutionary
The much-anticipated new J. J. Abrams television series 'Revolution' does not deserve its grandiose title by a long shot. The show's premise is great; a world gone dark, the total loss of electricity and the fate of a planet reduced to a pre-industrial agricultural world. A major blow to the pride of civilizations grown soft and dependent on trivialities and luxuries, too busy to look up from their phones to realize that they've lost their strongest asset: adaptability. The philosophical, moral implications are huge. There's more than enough material in there to cover endless seasons of questions, not just on the premise, but on the foundations of civilization, their rise and fall, our relationship with technology and our connection to the earth that sustains us.
The show was bursting with potential. And then it aired.
The premiere was more than disappointing. It was annoying. It's hard to know where to begin: the wooden acting, the predictable writing, the cheesy fight sequences, the stilted attempt at a 'story', the lack of chemistry between everyone in the cast, or the way it overpromised on its superb premise to underdeliver with all of the aforementioned.
Let's start with the starry-eyed optimism of what appears to be the main character, Charlie. She's a young woman who seems to believe in the inherent goodness of people and remembers a time when electricity still existed before her not-so-bad-looking life on a farm. Her father was one of the few people to understand the blackout and appears to have a clue from that time on how to get the power back. So ends the life of the most interesting person on the show, as he gets shot in the pilot within minutes of it starting. As for Charlie, you would expect that someone who had witnessed what was probably a traumatic shift for humankind, would be a little, well, harder.
As a matter of fact, this is one of the main problems with the show. You would expect a show with such a dark premise to be, well, darker. In a post-apocalyptic world gone dark, you would expect that there would be chaos, violence, blood, harrowing tales of human survival. Instead, you have this watered down, family friendly drama where everyone looks ridiculously clean and the dialogue is the only thing stiffer than the acting. There are no emotional connections formed with any of the characters, with the exception of a mild affection for the soft-bellied former Google tech wizard who can't fight, or the mild respect for the bad ass black dude who rocks the militia.
The attempts at 'romance' between Charlie and the militia man who, for some reason, can't stop himself from saving her multiple times despite the fact that he's tracking her as some sort of enemy of the state, are pathetic. The very fact that she needs so much saving is also a contributor to the annoyance factor. J.J.Abrams brought us such strong female characters as Sidney in 'Alias' and Kate in 'Lost' and then with this production, delivers a character who needs to get saved in the pilot-twice.
The attempts at creating family drama are even worse. Two episodes in, I couldn't care less whether or not they save her asthmatic brother. I'm also not sure why Miles even bothers with his little family, unless living has suddenly become boring. Apparently he's the family bad ass, but even he can't resist the doe eyes of his niece.
The show's format breaks down roughly into this: 20 minutes of boring drama, 10 minutes of fighting, 20 more minutes of boring drama, and 10 minutes on the actual conspiracy story which is of some flickering interest to the viewer. Unfortunately, the conspiracy story is not going to be enough. After suffering through two episodes of periodically yelling at characters and saying their lines with them because the script was so trite, I couldn't care less why the world went dark. Maybe someone spilled coke on the switchboard. Maybe someone at Apple got pissed off. Maybe it's the Russians. In any case, this is a series that deserves to stay in the dark.
The show was bursting with potential. And then it aired.
The premiere was more than disappointing. It was annoying. It's hard to know where to begin: the wooden acting, the predictable writing, the cheesy fight sequences, the stilted attempt at a 'story', the lack of chemistry between everyone in the cast, or the way it overpromised on its superb premise to underdeliver with all of the aforementioned.
Let's start with the starry-eyed optimism of what appears to be the main character, Charlie. She's a young woman who seems to believe in the inherent goodness of people and remembers a time when electricity still existed before her not-so-bad-looking life on a farm. Her father was one of the few people to understand the blackout and appears to have a clue from that time on how to get the power back. So ends the life of the most interesting person on the show, as he gets shot in the pilot within minutes of it starting. As for Charlie, you would expect that someone who had witnessed what was probably a traumatic shift for humankind, would be a little, well, harder.
As a matter of fact, this is one of the main problems with the show. You would expect a show with such a dark premise to be, well, darker. In a post-apocalyptic world gone dark, you would expect that there would be chaos, violence, blood, harrowing tales of human survival. Instead, you have this watered down, family friendly drama where everyone looks ridiculously clean and the dialogue is the only thing stiffer than the acting. There are no emotional connections formed with any of the characters, with the exception of a mild affection for the soft-bellied former Google tech wizard who can't fight, or the mild respect for the bad ass black dude who rocks the militia.
The attempts at 'romance' between Charlie and the militia man who, for some reason, can't stop himself from saving her multiple times despite the fact that he's tracking her as some sort of enemy of the state, are pathetic. The very fact that she needs so much saving is also a contributor to the annoyance factor. J.J.Abrams brought us such strong female characters as Sidney in 'Alias' and Kate in 'Lost' and then with this production, delivers a character who needs to get saved in the pilot-twice.
The attempts at creating family drama are even worse. Two episodes in, I couldn't care less whether or not they save her asthmatic brother. I'm also not sure why Miles even bothers with his little family, unless living has suddenly become boring. Apparently he's the family bad ass, but even he can't resist the doe eyes of his niece.
The show's format breaks down roughly into this: 20 minutes of boring drama, 10 minutes of fighting, 20 more minutes of boring drama, and 10 minutes on the actual conspiracy story which is of some flickering interest to the viewer. Unfortunately, the conspiracy story is not going to be enough. After suffering through two episodes of periodically yelling at characters and saying their lines with them because the script was so trite, I couldn't care less why the world went dark. Maybe someone spilled coke on the switchboard. Maybe someone at Apple got pissed off. Maybe it's the Russians. In any case, this is a series that deserves to stay in the dark.
Monday, September 17, 2012
NHL Lockout- plan B?
Now that the NHL lockout has become official, it's time for us fans to have a little fun at the expense of the players and consider some plan Bs for NHL players across the league.
Watching It: Dustin Byfuglien has been getting some flack for a little weight gain over the summer. He probably now knows how Jessica Simpson feels after the high-waisted jeans fiasco. Maybe it's time for the two of them to team up for Weight Watchers? Simpson's making a cool $4 million on her deal to shed the baby weight- Byfuglien's lockout weight deal should clock in at half of that. That's more than he makes playing hockey and all he has to do is eat lettuce. Not a bad deal.
The Battle of the Roses: Dion Phaneuf has gotten engaged over the summer to Elisha Cuthbert, the kind of hockey royalty wedding that could be splashed all over People. With so much time on his hands, could Phaneuf move on to become the worst Bridezilla we've ever seen? Somehow, the mental image of Phaneuf man-handling florists and terrorizing bakers seems all too possible.
Mad Hatter at the Tea Party: Tim Thomas was way ahead of the curve; he said no to this season before it even looked like a lockout year. He's taking a year off to devote to his personal matters, like his family and the Tea Party. He looks to be a shoe-in for Mad Hatter status, especially with that stache. If I was Alice, I would run like hell.
Staying at Home: Zach Parise and new BFF Ryan Suter both wanted to spend more time close to home. Wish granted.
Have some great ideas of your own? Why not shout it out on Twitter at #NHLLockoutplanB?
Watching It: Dustin Byfuglien has been getting some flack for a little weight gain over the summer. He probably now knows how Jessica Simpson feels after the high-waisted jeans fiasco. Maybe it's time for the two of them to team up for Weight Watchers? Simpson's making a cool $4 million on her deal to shed the baby weight- Byfuglien's lockout weight deal should clock in at half of that. That's more than he makes playing hockey and all he has to do is eat lettuce. Not a bad deal.
The Battle of the Roses: Dion Phaneuf has gotten engaged over the summer to Elisha Cuthbert, the kind of hockey royalty wedding that could be splashed all over People. With so much time on his hands, could Phaneuf move on to become the worst Bridezilla we've ever seen? Somehow, the mental image of Phaneuf man-handling florists and terrorizing bakers seems all too possible.
Mad Hatter at the Tea Party: Tim Thomas was way ahead of the curve; he said no to this season before it even looked like a lockout year. He's taking a year off to devote to his personal matters, like his family and the Tea Party. He looks to be a shoe-in for Mad Hatter status, especially with that stache. If I was Alice, I would run like hell.
Staying at Home: Zach Parise and new BFF Ryan Suter both wanted to spend more time close to home. Wish granted.
Have some great ideas of your own? Why not shout it out on Twitter at #NHLLockoutplanB?
How the NHL Lockout is Like the Public Service
True statement: Hockey fans who will never see a million dollars in their lifetime find it difficult to understand the trials and tribulations of billionnaire owners locking out millionnaire players. Very true. But when you think about the reactions from the public, the NHL lockout is not that different from the public service wage cuts and hiring freezes that were recently in the news in Canada.
Consider these parellels: the public service, as a whole, is viewed from the outside as a place of privilege. Lots of job security, excellent wages, competitive working conditions, enviable holidays and various types of leave for family, medical and other. Which was why when the cuts and freezes were implemented, very few people outside the public service had any sympathy. No matter how unfair it was to ask employees to give up benefits or do more work with less people, the public perception was always the same: boo hoo.
This situation does mirror the NHLPA. While it is unfair to ask the players to concede millions of dollars in a revenue-sharing plan which already benefits the owners, instead of focusing on that aspect, the public only chooses to see the dollar signs, the likes of which they will never see.
Context is important. Just as a low wage earner with no job security jeers at the public servant who makes 6 figures and can never be fired, so does the NHL fan look at the players with their millions and figure that it's no big deal. When you're already in a privileged place, it's difficult for people to sympathize when you lose some of the privileges that you already have. We call this the 'suck it up princess' theory.
In a bargaining process, there's always a certain amount of give and take. The public service fought hard to not have a wage freeze, although the government argued fiscal responsibility and administrative efficiencies. The public service argued for jobs protection and cost of living. The rest of the public mostly sided with the government in this public relations battle, most with the image useless desk jockeys surfing the net. Both the public service in Canada and the NHLPA were called overpaid bums. It's a funny thing to have in common, but there it is.
The NHL board of commissioners, much like the Canadian government, is claiming that it overpays its employees. The job cuts spoke loudly and clearly: we pay public servants too much money, just as Bettman claims that the NHL pays its players too much money. It was always a question of money. Painting its employees as greedy in the media was the weapon of choice for both groups. Another thing in common.
How did the public relations war end for the government and public service? The public service was cut drastically, to cheers from many less fortunate parts of the country. Cheers that may die down as essential services slow or disappear completely without ressources. How will it end for the NHL and NHLPA? So far, feelings are pretty mixed. But like the public service cuts, nobody ended up feeling very happy.
Consider these parellels: the public service, as a whole, is viewed from the outside as a place of privilege. Lots of job security, excellent wages, competitive working conditions, enviable holidays and various types of leave for family, medical and other. Which was why when the cuts and freezes were implemented, very few people outside the public service had any sympathy. No matter how unfair it was to ask employees to give up benefits or do more work with less people, the public perception was always the same: boo hoo.
This situation does mirror the NHLPA. While it is unfair to ask the players to concede millions of dollars in a revenue-sharing plan which already benefits the owners, instead of focusing on that aspect, the public only chooses to see the dollar signs, the likes of which they will never see.
Context is important. Just as a low wage earner with no job security jeers at the public servant who makes 6 figures and can never be fired, so does the NHL fan look at the players with their millions and figure that it's no big deal. When you're already in a privileged place, it's difficult for people to sympathize when you lose some of the privileges that you already have. We call this the 'suck it up princess' theory.
In a bargaining process, there's always a certain amount of give and take. The public service fought hard to not have a wage freeze, although the government argued fiscal responsibility and administrative efficiencies. The public service argued for jobs protection and cost of living. The rest of the public mostly sided with the government in this public relations battle, most with the image useless desk jockeys surfing the net. Both the public service in Canada and the NHLPA were called overpaid bums. It's a funny thing to have in common, but there it is.
The NHL board of commissioners, much like the Canadian government, is claiming that it overpays its employees. The job cuts spoke loudly and clearly: we pay public servants too much money, just as Bettman claims that the NHL pays its players too much money. It was always a question of money. Painting its employees as greedy in the media was the weapon of choice for both groups. Another thing in common.
How did the public relations war end for the government and public service? The public service was cut drastically, to cheers from many less fortunate parts of the country. Cheers that may die down as essential services slow or disappear completely without ressources. How will it end for the NHL and NHLPA? So far, feelings are pretty mixed. But like the public service cuts, nobody ended up feeling very happy.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Practical Schooling?
Can schools be more practical? This is probably not going to cause the same kind of debate as the question of whether or not they should be more practical. For the most part, it was understood for many young Canadians that school would teach them the building blocks of education, that they would get the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, to prepare them for more complicated matters later, such as philosophy, psychology and engineering, depending on their choice of future career path. All the practical things in life were to be taught at home: how to brush your teeth, fry an egg, table manners, social graces, what to say and wear in front of grandma. But it seems like these things are less obvious or are being forgotten as we microwave dinner and stare at phones. So is there a place for schools to step in?
Leaving the whole question of obligations aside, it is no doubt that society would benefit largely from schools offering more practical curriculum that not only teaches charts and dates, but also teaches fundamentals of life. Perhaps the notion that these things should be learned at home is outdated, part of a fundamental social and religious ideal that is no longer relevant. Perhaps, also, the notion that they can be learned at school is an acknowledgement of the fact that not all homes are the same.
If schools are meant to give children a real chance at a good life, arming them with the tools they need to succeed, why not teach them practical things and good habits they can use over a lifetime? Here are some of the topics that schools could include to help students in a more practical way:
1- Economics: This is not a topic that needs to be left for post-secondary. The basics of economics goes well beyond basic math and should include theory as well as personal economics. Personal economics includes how to create a budget, how to budget for university, the value of savings and investments and the perils of credit. It's not riveting stuff, but it's also not rocket science. You can't spend what you don't have and you can't borrow money without a reasonable plan to pay it back. Simple.
2- Social Media etiquette: Etiquette is quickly becoming an antiquated concept, but it is not limited to how to behave at a tea party. Etiquette are the basic, unwritten social rules of how to behave in a manner that is respectful, appropriate and as unobtrusive as possible. Anyone reading this post knows hundreds of people who could use social media etiquette- a quick scroll on Twitter will show tons of potential recruits. This course should look at the potential pitfalls and implications of social media and how freedom of expression and right to privacy may not be what we assume them to be. This course can also include smart use of social media, for the savvy would-be entrepreneur, even if that entrepreneur is a teenage babysitter.
3- Physical education and nutrition: We all hear the news about obesity rates and diabetes. Nothing will change if we don't teach good habits, and this type of course is not effective without nutrition, since the two go hand-in-hand. Physical education is not about playing dodgeball. It should be about basic fitness (how many kids can do 20 push ups? Seriously? How many?) and a reasonable diet that includes water and food that doesn't come from a can. This is the best preventative method when it comes to healthy habits and healthy adults.
4- World religions and diversity: It is not enough to just teach children about their own religion or their own community. The world is a small place and diversity is a great thing. It teaches us about ourselves and opens up a world of possibilities in food, fashion, flavours and festivals. More children will travel the world for experience, work or pleasure. They should be given the tools early on to adapt to new places and given a taste of what awaits them in a future of endless possibilities.
These are just four examples of simple ways we can boost education for children. While it's highly encouraged that parents should do this themselves, it's not always possible in our time-crunched world. But if we're really committed to helping children and empowering them for the future, we should at least consider it.
Leaving the whole question of obligations aside, it is no doubt that society would benefit largely from schools offering more practical curriculum that not only teaches charts and dates, but also teaches fundamentals of life. Perhaps the notion that these things should be learned at home is outdated, part of a fundamental social and religious ideal that is no longer relevant. Perhaps, also, the notion that they can be learned at school is an acknowledgement of the fact that not all homes are the same.
If schools are meant to give children a real chance at a good life, arming them with the tools they need to succeed, why not teach them practical things and good habits they can use over a lifetime? Here are some of the topics that schools could include to help students in a more practical way:
1- Economics: This is not a topic that needs to be left for post-secondary. The basics of economics goes well beyond basic math and should include theory as well as personal economics. Personal economics includes how to create a budget, how to budget for university, the value of savings and investments and the perils of credit. It's not riveting stuff, but it's also not rocket science. You can't spend what you don't have and you can't borrow money without a reasonable plan to pay it back. Simple.
2- Social Media etiquette: Etiquette is quickly becoming an antiquated concept, but it is not limited to how to behave at a tea party. Etiquette are the basic, unwritten social rules of how to behave in a manner that is respectful, appropriate and as unobtrusive as possible. Anyone reading this post knows hundreds of people who could use social media etiquette- a quick scroll on Twitter will show tons of potential recruits. This course should look at the potential pitfalls and implications of social media and how freedom of expression and right to privacy may not be what we assume them to be. This course can also include smart use of social media, for the savvy would-be entrepreneur, even if that entrepreneur is a teenage babysitter.
3- Physical education and nutrition: We all hear the news about obesity rates and diabetes. Nothing will change if we don't teach good habits, and this type of course is not effective without nutrition, since the two go hand-in-hand. Physical education is not about playing dodgeball. It should be about basic fitness (how many kids can do 20 push ups? Seriously? How many?) and a reasonable diet that includes water and food that doesn't come from a can. This is the best preventative method when it comes to healthy habits and healthy adults.
4- World religions and diversity: It is not enough to just teach children about their own religion or their own community. The world is a small place and diversity is a great thing. It teaches us about ourselves and opens up a world of possibilities in food, fashion, flavours and festivals. More children will travel the world for experience, work or pleasure. They should be given the tools early on to adapt to new places and given a taste of what awaits them in a future of endless possibilities.
These are just four examples of simple ways we can boost education for children. While it's highly encouraged that parents should do this themselves, it's not always possible in our time-crunched world. But if we're really committed to helping children and empowering them for the future, we should at least consider it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)