We're in the middle of an era where airline travel is now a matter of dollars and cents and what they'll charge you for and what they won't. We're livid with the new ways they're trying to save money because their biggest methods involve charging us more, cutting off services and using practices that in most people's minds should be illegal. (That's right, I'm talking about "overbooking" and selling more tickets than there are seats on the plane as insurance against cancellations - which I'm sure makes sense to the airlines but it sounds like purely illegal activity in MY book.) Anyway, with all the rage regarding the possibility of being treated as nothing more than sacks of meat freight and paying tickets based on our weight - we seem to have overlooked an interesting trend that this blogger sees as a potentially good idea and a potentially bad one.
More airlines have stopped letting families with small children board before the general public, including Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines.
There are, of course, two schools of thought regarding this course of action.
1) This is a great idea, because it's more efficient and those not travelling with small children that get seated faster.
The numbers don't lie. It's primarily an efficiency thing. So before you accuse any of the airlines of being anti-parent, anti-children, anti-family or anti-caring-about-those-travelling-with-small-children, please bear in mind that test after test proves that it's an inefficient way to board a plane. Just ask Delta, the leading airline in service experiments:
"If you're bringing on people who need assistance — younger kids — all at once, you potentially create a bottleneck on the front end, as opposed to randomly dispersing them based on where people are sitting in the aircraft," explained Delta spokesman Anthony Black. "The best process is to board the aircraft normally."
And doing so, he said, saves an average of 10 to 12 minutes over allowing families to preboard.
You know, it's hard to argue with 10 to 12 solid minutes of difference between a plane being ready for takeoff and a plane still stuck on the tarmac with flight attendants telling you to stow things completely under the seat in front of you.
Meanwhile, the parents in the family units travelling with small children generally need extra time to deal with their extra baggage (both the luggage and the human varieties) and the fact that they have limited hands/arms with which to deal with it all. But does it make more sense to let them take that extra time BEFORE allowing the rest of the passengers to have THEIR time dealing with baggage and settling in? Or should they be stuck managing things when the rest of the passengers are - taking the same amount of extra time, but at the SAME time as other people?
Normally, I'd say good riddance to the families-board-first initiative - but I'm also aware of the lesser-talked-about second school of thought regarding this issue.
2) This is a horrible idea, because children could wind up ANYWHERE.
Speaking as a non-travelling-with-small-children passenger, there's one benefit I've found to having to wait those extra minutes while the breeders on my flight get to take their sweet time buckling in Junior. That benefit is that when it's time for ME to board, I have a visual of all potential child-endangered seating. If you don't want a brat kicking your chair or be in a onw-row vicinity of a screaming baby - the best strategy is to let them on first and then pick the spot that's clear of their threats. I work to identify all snot-nosed kiddies in those 30 seconds of travelling down the claustrophobic aisleway so I can pick a window seat as close to the front but as far as possible from the broodlings.
Without this system - if you let all general passengers start boarding in one group - my seat's perimeter could be invaded by Children of the Corn in a later boarding group! While no parent is really going to raise an eyebrow to someone passing up their row to find other available seating, getting up to get the hell out of there once they have arrived is probably going to be a confrontational issue. Especially if it's interrupting their several-minute procedure of getting settled in. Which means you're either stuck being a jerk or stuck with the little ones the entire flight.
Now please don't think of me as some ogre who's against children and thinks that they're all a bunch of snot-nosed poopy-pantsed screaming bundles of pure evil and annoyance. I've personally had very few flights that have been affected by young people - and those that were involved babies with colic who frankly disturbed the ENTIRE plane, no matter where you were located. But then again, I've made it a point to take these proactive measures to ensure that I DON'T have a lot of flights being affected by your little ones.
Don't take it from me, though. Try asking AirFareWatchDog.com and their poll about how the flying public feel about those travelling with their little children. There was a news story about it as well, citing that regarding the question of "Should airlines have a section of the plane reserved for parents with babies and younger children?" 58% of pollsters responded that "Yes, they should have done this long ago." 27% said "Yes, but they never will and it'll never work." and the remaining 15% went with "No. This is a bad idea."
85% of people think that child-carrying clans should sit in a separate section of the plane, even though a third of them think it'll never happen. I frankly don't think it'll work, either, but that's from a logistics standpoint. I'm not thinking about the business situation of their "overbooking" and whether it's okay to fill up cancelled Family Zone seats with standby Adult Zone passengers - I'm just thinking about the fact that most people want to stow children away somewhere they can't be HEARD. You can't soundproof a section of an airplane. It'll prevent the kicking and reduce the risk of germ infestation and being nagged or stared at by the unsupervised toddlers you'll occasionally encounter. But it won't reduce the overall noise they generate in a variety of ways.
So here's my idea.
If you're an airline lucky enough to still have TICKETED SEATING, meaning you purchase a ticket and it's got your seat row and number on it - then to hell with those and their small children, because there's no reason to have them waste those 10 to 12 minutes. You know where you're sitting, as does everyone, and you board by groups from the rear of the plane to the front as it's the most efficient method, and that's that.
If you're an airline like so many nowadays with GROUP SEATING, meaning you purchase a ticket and it's got your boarding group on it - then for the sake of those who don't want to be around your little ones, we have to let you on first so we know where NOT to sit. We hate the thought of losing another ten minutes to standing around with an A-Group boarding pass while we wait for the endless stream of priority seating passengers to settle in, but at least we have a chance to save ourselves from being bothered DURING them flight - provided we spent the time and effort to get an A-Group boarding pass and show up early enough to have a pick of seating in the child-free zones.
So that's my idea for how to solve the problem. Of course, my opinion really doesn't matter, since I'm an extra-large sack of meat freight who'll be flying as little as possible to avoid being charged per-pound just to visit family.
Do you have ideas about this issue (other than calling me names or treating me like an ogre)? Leave a comment and join the debate!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Showing posts with label parents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parents. Show all posts
Monday, August 25, 2008
Monday, June 09, 2008
School Allergies
When it comes to allergies, it seems that very few people are unaffected. We all at the very least know SOMEONE with an allergy if we ourselves fall into the rare category of "no known allergies" (since it's impossible to be 100% sure). More often than not, these victims of allergies are children - with the list of allergens growing larger and larger as more and more children are having reactions.
But where do we draw the line? Who is supposed to have the freedoms?
I speak, of course, regarding the widespread "allergy bans" going on in schools today. With the number of children needing to carry epinephrine just in case of a reaction during the school day, at what point does the matter become one for the schools themselves or even the government to make a ruling to force the schools to take action?
Frankly, I'm asking you.
This isn't one of my usual musings followed by my opinion that certainly leads in one direction and mocks anyone going the other direction. At best, I can attempt to mock both directions, since I don't know which side of the fence I'm leaning.
On the one hand, there are now millions of children who are deathly allergic to common items. In fact, eight foods account for 90% of all allergic reactions — peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition says food allergies lead to 150 deaths, 30,000 emergency room visits and 2,000 hospitalizations each year.
One can find it easy to argue in favor of "children who could die" - we as a society apparently feel the worst when a child dies, prefering to take the optimistic route of the endless potential for good that has been shattered by ending that life too soon rather than a pessimistic approach of "that baby could have grown up to be a mass-murderer, so nice work there, tree nuts." We don't like the imagery of sending a child into a potential death zone, full of products that could have been made in a factory that may contain peanut dust, hoping each day that it isn't her last.
But at what point do we bother to stand up for the kids who enjoy products made in peanut-dust-offender factories?
On that other hand, researchers are suggesting that the cause of the dramatic increase in childhood allergies is that parents are simply overprotecting their precious snowflakes, leading their immune system to become the equivelant of an ignorant hillbilly bigot (I'm not saying that all hillbillies are bigots or ignorant, or that all bigots are hillbillies, but that these immune systems are all three), too dumb to discern friendly peanut bits from infectious bacteria and takes a sawed-off shotgun to the whole danged lot of 'em and requires a lot of medication to get them to calm the hell down.
That in mind, when does the bad parenting spread from the above lack of building their child's immune system to demanding that other children and parents bend to their whims to protect their precious snowflake from the evil peanut dust? When does a school have the right to yield to their ear-splitting wails and deprive the other precious snowflakes their right to eat a PB&J? We already mess with the school lunch system enough, but now we have to tack on regulations about what outside food is brought in via a child's homemade lunch? The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act may do just that - regulating all food contents allowed to be present inside the school.
Frankly, just upon writing what I thought would be an unbiased look at both sides of the argument, it seems I've stumbled upon the side I lean towards.
I don't think the government should interfere. I don't think the schools should have to regulate this. I think precious snowflakes belong in "precious snowflake schools" that have volunteered to mandate these things, rather than being forced to.
First of all, we should be paying a little more attention to students bringing GUNS, KNIVES, WEAPONS, DRUGS and other illegal things to school first and foremost. I mean the REAL dangerous stuff. I knew a kid in my high school class who got suspended for having a HAMMER in his LOCKER. Kid you not. I also know a kid in my high school class who got expelled for having alcohol in his prom limo (and being drunk), one who got suspended for smoking pot within 30 yards of the school, and two who were expelled for making a fake bomb threat (though in their defense, it got us out of attending that stupid rally, even if it did get moved to later date). These are the things our school officials should be caring about rather than the potential threat of a Reese's peanut butter cup.
I guess this is where I descend into my usual hate-filled tirades, or at least making statements that offend people.
I'm hoping that the writer of this article was intending to rally sympathy for this child when the following was written:
Danielle is terrified to attend school on the days following big candy holidays like Halloween and Easter because students bring peanut butter cups and other goodies with them.
Her nut allergy is so severe that she can go into shock if a child across a table or a school bus aisle eats peanut butter candy. She takes four allergy medications every morning and carries two pens of self-injectable epinephrine, a form of adrenaline, everywhere she goes in case she starts to have a reaction.
"Having peanuts in my face is like having a loaded gun held to your head," said Danielle, who estimates that during the past school year she suffered 20 reactions that landed her in the emergency room or a clinic for breathing treatments.
Call me an asshole if you will (go ahead, it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last), but this just sounds to me like someone who wasn't meant to live with the rest of us. Like Mother Nature (or Darwin) is trying to finish the job that these overprotective parents neglected to start. The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't get to grow up and breed. The kid who can't look at a peanut without exploding probably shouldn't, either. I don't want to jump straight to "put this child out of her misery" or "let's kill all these allergy kids" - but when you're faced with that kind of story, doesn't that pop into your mind for like AT LEAST A SECOND?
I'm willing to jump straight to "give them their own schools", though. Rather than detract from everyone ELSE'S learning with the constant jabbing of epi-pens and time delays over reminders against tree nuts or searching lunches for deadly peanut dust - assign one school (or have one volunteer) to be peanut-free. Bam, move those kids there. You can't argue that it's financially-mean to these parents to have to send their kid to a farther-away school or something, because I'm sure that the cost of 20 E.R. visits during one school year is way more costly.
The real conclusion is that this whole situation is one more reason why I don't want to have kids right now. And why I probably don't like YOUR kids. And why I'm glad my parents let me eat things that fell on the floor or were JUST past their expiration dates.
What do you think? Should schools get to decide? Should the government? Should they just be sent to their own allergy-free schools? Should they just be put out of their misery because almost dying 20 times hasn't gotten the message across yet?
(The article that sparked this rant) Read more!
But where do we draw the line? Who is supposed to have the freedoms?
I speak, of course, regarding the widespread "allergy bans" going on in schools today. With the number of children needing to carry epinephrine just in case of a reaction during the school day, at what point does the matter become one for the schools themselves or even the government to make a ruling to force the schools to take action?
Frankly, I'm asking you.
This isn't one of my usual musings followed by my opinion that certainly leads in one direction and mocks anyone going the other direction. At best, I can attempt to mock both directions, since I don't know which side of the fence I'm leaning.
On the one hand, there are now millions of children who are deathly allergic to common items. In fact, eight foods account for 90% of all allergic reactions — peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition says food allergies lead to 150 deaths, 30,000 emergency room visits and 2,000 hospitalizations each year.
One can find it easy to argue in favor of "children who could die" - we as a society apparently feel the worst when a child dies, prefering to take the optimistic route of the endless potential for good that has been shattered by ending that life too soon rather than a pessimistic approach of "that baby could have grown up to be a mass-murderer, so nice work there, tree nuts." We don't like the imagery of sending a child into a potential death zone, full of products that could have been made in a factory that may contain peanut dust, hoping each day that it isn't her last.
But at what point do we bother to stand up for the kids who enjoy products made in peanut-dust-offender factories?
On that other hand, researchers are suggesting that the cause of the dramatic increase in childhood allergies is that parents are simply overprotecting their precious snowflakes, leading their immune system to become the equivelant of an ignorant hillbilly bigot (I'm not saying that all hillbillies are bigots or ignorant, or that all bigots are hillbillies, but that these immune systems are all three), too dumb to discern friendly peanut bits from infectious bacteria and takes a sawed-off shotgun to the whole danged lot of 'em and requires a lot of medication to get them to calm the hell down.
That in mind, when does the bad parenting spread from the above lack of building their child's immune system to demanding that other children and parents bend to their whims to protect their precious snowflake from the evil peanut dust? When does a school have the right to yield to their ear-splitting wails and deprive the other precious snowflakes their right to eat a PB&J? We already mess with the school lunch system enough, but now we have to tack on regulations about what outside food is brought in via a child's homemade lunch? The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act may do just that - regulating all food contents allowed to be present inside the school.
Frankly, just upon writing what I thought would be an unbiased look at both sides of the argument, it seems I've stumbled upon the side I lean towards.
I don't think the government should interfere. I don't think the schools should have to regulate this. I think precious snowflakes belong in "precious snowflake schools" that have volunteered to mandate these things, rather than being forced to.
First of all, we should be paying a little more attention to students bringing GUNS, KNIVES, WEAPONS, DRUGS and other illegal things to school first and foremost. I mean the REAL dangerous stuff. I knew a kid in my high school class who got suspended for having a HAMMER in his LOCKER. Kid you not. I also know a kid in my high school class who got expelled for having alcohol in his prom limo (and being drunk), one who got suspended for smoking pot within 30 yards of the school, and two who were expelled for making a fake bomb threat (though in their defense, it got us out of attending that stupid rally, even if it did get moved to later date). These are the things our school officials should be caring about rather than the potential threat of a Reese's peanut butter cup.
I guess this is where I descend into my usual hate-filled tirades, or at least making statements that offend people.
I'm hoping that the writer of this article was intending to rally sympathy for this child when the following was written:
Danielle is terrified to attend school on the days following big candy holidays like Halloween and Easter because students bring peanut butter cups and other goodies with them.
Her nut allergy is so severe that she can go into shock if a child across a table or a school bus aisle eats peanut butter candy. She takes four allergy medications every morning and carries two pens of self-injectable epinephrine, a form of adrenaline, everywhere she goes in case she starts to have a reaction.
"Having peanuts in my face is like having a loaded gun held to your head," said Danielle, who estimates that during the past school year she suffered 20 reactions that landed her in the emergency room or a clinic for breathing treatments.
Call me an asshole if you will (go ahead, it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last), but this just sounds to me like someone who wasn't meant to live with the rest of us. Like Mother Nature (or Darwin) is trying to finish the job that these overprotective parents neglected to start. The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't get to grow up and breed. The kid who can't look at a peanut without exploding probably shouldn't, either. I don't want to jump straight to "put this child out of her misery" or "let's kill all these allergy kids" - but when you're faced with that kind of story, doesn't that pop into your mind for like AT LEAST A SECOND?
I'm willing to jump straight to "give them their own schools", though. Rather than detract from everyone ELSE'S learning with the constant jabbing of epi-pens and time delays over reminders against tree nuts or searching lunches for deadly peanut dust - assign one school (or have one volunteer) to be peanut-free. Bam, move those kids there. You can't argue that it's financially-mean to these parents to have to send their kid to a farther-away school or something, because I'm sure that the cost of 20 E.R. visits during one school year is way more costly.
The real conclusion is that this whole situation is one more reason why I don't want to have kids right now. And why I probably don't like YOUR kids. And why I'm glad my parents let me eat things that fell on the floor or were JUST past their expiration dates.
What do you think? Should schools get to decide? Should the government? Should they just be sent to their own allergy-free schools? Should they just be put out of their misery because almost dying 20 times hasn't gotten the message across yet?
(The article that sparked this rant) Read more!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Trunk-or-Treat?
Taking "trick-or-treating" to the next level (or rather just a different level), a new phenomenon has been on the rise, called "trunk-or-treating". You may have heard something about it in the human interest section of the news, or maybe have even participated in it. The question mostly being asked is, "What do you think about trunk-or-treating?" Frankly, I'm torn.
It's a good idea, in theory, but like all things that are good in theory, I'm not willing to trust it further than I can throw it. And since it's virtually impossible to throw an abstract concept, I obviously don't trust it very much.
In "trick-or-treating", children go from door to door in their neighborhood, knocking on the doors and positing the choice of dishing out treats or possibly getting tricked. The homeowner, usually preferring not to be tricked later in the night, doles out candy bars that are admittedly NOT a "fun size" - and the process continues down the street. In fact, it usually continues until someone passes out (from sleep deprivation or diabetic shock) or the haul is too large to physically move and the children must be picked up - preferably with some kind of crane or forklift.
In "trunk-or-treating", the rules change. Instead of lying in wait at the door of their homes, the candy offerings are poured into the trunk of the car and all of the cars meet in one spot for the neighborhood. Then children come to this parking lot candy buffet and visit all of the trunks. That's it.
Again, I am completely torn on this issue. The side of me that loves the idea is the child inside of me, who is currently cackling at the prospect of a "parking lot candy buffet". The side of me that is most against it is the adult inside of me, who is among the population deemed "too old" to be wandering about town in a disguise in attempts to not have to pay for candy, but rather has to pay for candy that will be doled out to your snot-nosed offspring. For him, the notion of making it EASIER for children to find my candy and eat it is one that I am not on board with at all.
Cue the "in my day" speech, possibly involving walking five miles uphill (both ways) just for one of those horrible white baggies of doorstop-kin marshmallows that tasted as bad as every other sense warned you about them.
Now that the demons in me have subsided, I will admit that it's not TOTALLY a horrible idea. I can see that for rural towns, where visiting four houses might actually entail walking five miles, a chance for everyone to get together in one place and have a celebration for the holiday and have the chance to have your kids actually get some candy - that sounds like an acceptable idea. But again, good in theory rarely means it's good in practice.
My concern is that most times you hear about these trunk-or-treat parties/events, they're taking place at CHURCHES. Not only that, but in the same sentence you'll often hear SOMETHING religious or with a religious theme, or even just the words "Veggie Tales". My concern is that the church is trying to steal away this holiday! To the religious, anything that promotes the slightest bit of happiness in relation to anything non-Jesus (be it a witch, zombie, or Thomas the Tank Engine) is something that must be stopped or captured and then brainwashed into oblivion. Mixing churches with Hallowe'en is like trying to have your bachelor's party at your grandmother's house - with her in it.
My other concern is the creepy tone set by the words themselves. With "trick-or-treat", you know what the two options are. "Give me a treat, or I will commit some kind of trick on you." With this new "trunk-or-treat" concept, what's at stake? Are they going to lock children in a trunk when they run out of candy? Just from a language standpoint, it's confusing and admittedly creepy-sounding.
Also, what are childless male adults supposed to do? We already get enough guff from society as a whole if we even take the slightest interest in anything related to children. Something tells me that if parents knew beforehand which houses on a block were inhabited by single male adults without children, they would specifically wanr their children to avoid those houses. Nevermind the fact that the intentions of my ilk are just to hand out candy to children - we're already seen as "predators" and "sociopaths" and "red flags" to parents. Something tells me that an adult male with no children, like myself, would get the crap beat out of him for showing up in a parking lot with a trunkload of candy - even if everything took place in plain sight of the parents.
What it all boils down to is that I'm really not all that into the trunk-or-treating concept. I think it's dangerous to the holiday itself, in spirit and in tradition. Would I recommend it to rural areas? Sure. Nothing makes the night easier for parents and children alike than meeting up, getting it all over with and doing minimal walking. Would I recommend it to children? Sure. Nothing beats a 500-foot walk in a parking lot to secure a huge sugar haul instead of the 5-mile-uphill-in-the-snow-both-ways walks of my day. Would I recommend it to true fans of Hallowe'en, who know the history of the day itself (including why I always spell it with an apostrophe) and live to decorate and spook and share the true experiences of this delightfully-devilish nighttime adventure? Not a chance.
And in return for an offering of Boo Berry, I'd gladly share some of my tales...
(The trunk-or-treating "ritual")
Read more!
It's a good idea, in theory, but like all things that are good in theory, I'm not willing to trust it further than I can throw it. And since it's virtually impossible to throw an abstract concept, I obviously don't trust it very much.
In "trick-or-treating", children go from door to door in their neighborhood, knocking on the doors and positing the choice of dishing out treats or possibly getting tricked. The homeowner, usually preferring not to be tricked later in the night, doles out candy bars that are admittedly NOT a "fun size" - and the process continues down the street. In fact, it usually continues until someone passes out (from sleep deprivation or diabetic shock) or the haul is too large to physically move and the children must be picked up - preferably with some kind of crane or forklift.
In "trunk-or-treating", the rules change. Instead of lying in wait at the door of their homes, the candy offerings are poured into the trunk of the car and all of the cars meet in one spot for the neighborhood. Then children come to this parking lot candy buffet and visit all of the trunks. That's it.
Again, I am completely torn on this issue. The side of me that loves the idea is the child inside of me, who is currently cackling at the prospect of a "parking lot candy buffet". The side of me that is most against it is the adult inside of me, who is among the population deemed "too old" to be wandering about town in a disguise in attempts to not have to pay for candy, but rather has to pay for candy that will be doled out to your snot-nosed offspring. For him, the notion of making it EASIER for children to find my candy and eat it is one that I am not on board with at all.
Cue the "in my day" speech, possibly involving walking five miles uphill (both ways) just for one of those horrible white baggies of doorstop-kin marshmallows that tasted as bad as every other sense warned you about them.
Now that the demons in me have subsided, I will admit that it's not TOTALLY a horrible idea. I can see that for rural towns, where visiting four houses might actually entail walking five miles, a chance for everyone to get together in one place and have a celebration for the holiday and have the chance to have your kids actually get some candy - that sounds like an acceptable idea. But again, good in theory rarely means it's good in practice.
My concern is that most times you hear about these trunk-or-treat parties/events, they're taking place at CHURCHES. Not only that, but in the same sentence you'll often hear SOMETHING religious or with a religious theme, or even just the words "Veggie Tales". My concern is that the church is trying to steal away this holiday! To the religious, anything that promotes the slightest bit of happiness in relation to anything non-Jesus (be it a witch, zombie, or Thomas the Tank Engine) is something that must be stopped or captured and then brainwashed into oblivion. Mixing churches with Hallowe'en is like trying to have your bachelor's party at your grandmother's house - with her in it.
My other concern is the creepy tone set by the words themselves. With "trick-or-treat", you know what the two options are. "Give me a treat, or I will commit some kind of trick on you." With this new "trunk-or-treat" concept, what's at stake? Are they going to lock children in a trunk when they run out of candy? Just from a language standpoint, it's confusing and admittedly creepy-sounding.
Also, what are childless male adults supposed to do? We already get enough guff from society as a whole if we even take the slightest interest in anything related to children. Something tells me that if parents knew beforehand which houses on a block were inhabited by single male adults without children, they would specifically wanr their children to avoid those houses. Nevermind the fact that the intentions of my ilk are just to hand out candy to children - we're already seen as "predators" and "sociopaths" and "red flags" to parents. Something tells me that an adult male with no children, like myself, would get the crap beat out of him for showing up in a parking lot with a trunkload of candy - even if everything took place in plain sight of the parents.
What it all boils down to is that I'm really not all that into the trunk-or-treating concept. I think it's dangerous to the holiday itself, in spirit and in tradition. Would I recommend it to rural areas? Sure. Nothing makes the night easier for parents and children alike than meeting up, getting it all over with and doing minimal walking. Would I recommend it to children? Sure. Nothing beats a 500-foot walk in a parking lot to secure a huge sugar haul instead of the 5-mile-uphill-in-the-snow-both-ways walks of my day. Would I recommend it to true fans of Hallowe'en, who know the history of the day itself (including why I always spell it with an apostrophe) and live to decorate and spook and share the true experiences of this delightfully-devilish nighttime adventure? Not a chance.
And in return for an offering of Boo Berry, I'd gladly share some of my tales...
(The trunk-or-treating "ritual")
Read more!
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Back-to-School Special
Here in Chicago, it's the first day of school. Which means that in a few weeks, it'll finally be time to take down the "Back to School" sales and really pitch in with the holiday-themed items. I've already seen tons of displays up for Hallowe'en candy, which you can apparently now purchase far enough in advance to wind up eating the entire collection of "fun-sized" candies and still pick up replacements at a discount. But that's a topic for another day: I'm here to relay some messages to the little ones out there who are starting their first days of the new school year.
For the elementary school children:
LEARN TO READ, WRITE AND DO 'RITHMATIC!
We can't all be geniuses who learn to read at age 18 months, but the least you can do is keep at it and become literate - so in time, you'll learn how to spell, how to expand your vocabulary and then you'll be in a position above practically 70% of the population when you're in high school. Of course, knowing how to spell doesn't get put to good use (other than spelling bee trophies) until you learn how to write put your ideas into words. The faster you can pick that up, the better your chances will be of having people take your ideas seriously. As for math, don't be an idiot who has to count things with fingers, and needs to wear open-toed shoes in case they need to go above ten. I'm not saying that you have to take calculus or anything, I'm just saying that all of the good jobs involve degrees that require math - and a lot of the crappier jobs still require you to add and subtract quickly, let alone multiply and divide on a bad day. Trust me, math skills will help you save money in almost every situation if you know how to use it.
For the teachers and parents: in order to have your children learn to read, write and do 'rithmatic, you need to stop babying them! Not everybody is a winner, especially not your kids. They need to learn that someone is always better than them and only one person gets to take home the grand prize. If that's your kid, enjoy the moment while it lasts, because there's always someone at your heels, ready to be the next #1. Teams lose, because one did better than the other. Telling them that "everyone who plays is a winner" plants false ideas in their heads - try implanting good sportsmanship. The best way to do that is by demonstrating it, which means NOT being a jackass parent yelling at an umpire or coach about unfair calls and your precious child not getting enough play time. If you wanted your children to always get to play, you should be playing in a park with them as a family, not as a team.
For the high school children:
SHUT UP, PUT YOUR TOYS AWAY AND LEARN!
You know how your parents and grandparents will tell you boring stories about walking five miles to school, in the snow, both ways, and then using old contraptions like slide rules while hand-writing every piece of work because there were no new-fangled computers back then? LISTEN TO THEM! They didn't have your fancy toys, and they learned enough to get them through life, didn't they? Went to school every day because it's the law, AND they'd get a whoopin' if they were caught playing hookey? Studied real hard so they'd get good grades so they wouldn't get another whoopin'? Graduated high school and either went to college or got a job - something something more whoopin'?
It's called a "hard life" and it builds character! That's not just a catchphrase taught to all parents in a mandatory seminar. (Trust me, while all parents should have a mandatory seminar, this whole "character" notion is something bonus that comes from people who actually did it.) Things that are hard to do are usually the things worth doing. Hand-write an essay and you'll find you're more careful about your wording and making mistakes in the language. Try multiplying or adding something on paper instead of with a calculator every now and then - it's a good refresher and firing up those brain synapses keeps them active and healthy and can actually help ward off Alzheimer's.
As for your toys - leave them at home, where toys belong. Yes, every single human being on the planet now seems to have a cellphone - great for emergency contact and scheduling, but not for school time. Same goes for... just about anything electronic that distracts you from shutting up, paying attention and doing your damned schoolwork! I'm not going to promise you that every course and every lesson throughout high school is crucial to living in the real world - but every course DOES offer knowledge that IS necessary to being a well-rounded individual and the potential to not shame your family's name at some point in your life. You know all those studies that say Americans can't locate (insert country) on a map? Maybe if they'd paid more attention in Geography class, they wouldn't be screwing up and making our country the laughingstock in the education department that it currently is!
For the college-bound young adults:
QUIT WASTING TIME AND MONEY AND GET A JOB!
I'm currently more a believer in the idea that college really doesn't do much for you in the real world. And no, college is NOT the real world. It's just a lazy version of high school because parents are no longer part of the equation. They're not pushing you out of bed so you'll get to school/class on time. They're not checking up on your grades with report cards and parent-teacher conferences. They're just an ATM for when beer money supplies are low. This is the point that most college students pass through for some duration of their journey through college. Also the point where I'd yell at them to GET A JOB.
I also hear these tales about how college graduates make $500,000 more in a lifetime, or make double what a non-college graduate makes. What they DON'T mention is the insane amount of loans it generally takes to get through the four years of college for a standard degree. These loans build up, become huge, and even after consolidation - they're huge and you have to pay them with interest. The debt is staggering, and it can seriously ruin your credit rating. What good is an extra 50% salary if all the things you want to buy are off-limits due to bad credit?
You know, not everyone gets into college, either. There's currently an issue in Colorado over the fact that graduation requirements for high schools aren't high enough to match entrance requirements for colleges. So rather than make high school students learn more, or accept the fact that some of 'em aren't good enough or ready for college - they're dropping/lowering the admissions standards to get into college. That's just sick in my book. We're dumbing down so much in American schools, why bother having standards at all? Let's just throw some books at children, expect them to read them, realize they probably won't, then take a nap and wait for the next school year? College is for people who are smart enough and driven enough to warrant getting in. If you're not one of those people, you don't belong in college. Yea, even if you DID get in. Quit wasting everyone's time and just get a job.
Then there's the groups of people who try to convince you that without a degree, you'll never climb that ladder or gain entry to the job positions and types of "work you'll enjoy doing." I say that there are plenty of positions open where the work is something you can enjoy doing. Unfortunately, jobs aren't just about the work, they're about the company/business and co-workers and other employees and bosses that make a job a JOB. If I didn't have bosses yelling at me and deadlines that are unfeasible and co-workers who are a few rocks short of a box, I'd absolutely love the work I'm doing. I enjoy data analysis and reporting. I also enjoy my side-gig of writing articles like these. What it all comes down to is that you can always pick your career - picking everything else isn't up to you, it's all a crap shoot and work was never really meant to be fun.
If work were meant to be fun, they wouldn't have to pay you to get you to do it.
That's all for this segment of my Back-to-School Special. There will undoubtedly be a Part Two.
(The Colorado college stuff)
Read more!
For the elementary school children:
LEARN TO READ, WRITE AND DO 'RITHMATIC!
We can't all be geniuses who learn to read at age 18 months, but the least you can do is keep at it and become literate - so in time, you'll learn how to spell, how to expand your vocabulary and then you'll be in a position above practically 70% of the population when you're in high school. Of course, knowing how to spell doesn't get put to good use (other than spelling bee trophies) until you learn how to write put your ideas into words. The faster you can pick that up, the better your chances will be of having people take your ideas seriously. As for math, don't be an idiot who has to count things with fingers, and needs to wear open-toed shoes in case they need to go above ten. I'm not saying that you have to take calculus or anything, I'm just saying that all of the good jobs involve degrees that require math - and a lot of the crappier jobs still require you to add and subtract quickly, let alone multiply and divide on a bad day. Trust me, math skills will help you save money in almost every situation if you know how to use it.
For the teachers and parents: in order to have your children learn to read, write and do 'rithmatic, you need to stop babying them! Not everybody is a winner, especially not your kids. They need to learn that someone is always better than them and only one person gets to take home the grand prize. If that's your kid, enjoy the moment while it lasts, because there's always someone at your heels, ready to be the next #1. Teams lose, because one did better than the other. Telling them that "everyone who plays is a winner" plants false ideas in their heads - try implanting good sportsmanship. The best way to do that is by demonstrating it, which means NOT being a jackass parent yelling at an umpire or coach about unfair calls and your precious child not getting enough play time. If you wanted your children to always get to play, you should be playing in a park with them as a family, not as a team.
For the high school children:
SHUT UP, PUT YOUR TOYS AWAY AND LEARN!
You know how your parents and grandparents will tell you boring stories about walking five miles to school, in the snow, both ways, and then using old contraptions like slide rules while hand-writing every piece of work because there were no new-fangled computers back then? LISTEN TO THEM! They didn't have your fancy toys, and they learned enough to get them through life, didn't they? Went to school every day because it's the law, AND they'd get a whoopin' if they were caught playing hookey? Studied real hard so they'd get good grades so they wouldn't get another whoopin'? Graduated high school and either went to college or got a job - something something more whoopin'?
It's called a "hard life" and it builds character! That's not just a catchphrase taught to all parents in a mandatory seminar. (Trust me, while all parents should have a mandatory seminar, this whole "character" notion is something bonus that comes from people who actually did it.) Things that are hard to do are usually the things worth doing. Hand-write an essay and you'll find you're more careful about your wording and making mistakes in the language. Try multiplying or adding something on paper instead of with a calculator every now and then - it's a good refresher and firing up those brain synapses keeps them active and healthy and can actually help ward off Alzheimer's.
As for your toys - leave them at home, where toys belong. Yes, every single human being on the planet now seems to have a cellphone - great for emergency contact and scheduling, but not for school time. Same goes for... just about anything electronic that distracts you from shutting up, paying attention and doing your damned schoolwork! I'm not going to promise you that every course and every lesson throughout high school is crucial to living in the real world - but every course DOES offer knowledge that IS necessary to being a well-rounded individual and the potential to not shame your family's name at some point in your life. You know all those studies that say Americans can't locate (insert country) on a map? Maybe if they'd paid more attention in Geography class, they wouldn't be screwing up and making our country the laughingstock in the education department that it currently is!
For the college-bound young adults:
QUIT WASTING TIME AND MONEY AND GET A JOB!
I'm currently more a believer in the idea that college really doesn't do much for you in the real world. And no, college is NOT the real world. It's just a lazy version of high school because parents are no longer part of the equation. They're not pushing you out of bed so you'll get to school/class on time. They're not checking up on your grades with report cards and parent-teacher conferences. They're just an ATM for when beer money supplies are low. This is the point that most college students pass through for some duration of their journey through college. Also the point where I'd yell at them to GET A JOB.
I also hear these tales about how college graduates make $500,000 more in a lifetime, or make double what a non-college graduate makes. What they DON'T mention is the insane amount of loans it generally takes to get through the four years of college for a standard degree. These loans build up, become huge, and even after consolidation - they're huge and you have to pay them with interest. The debt is staggering, and it can seriously ruin your credit rating. What good is an extra 50% salary if all the things you want to buy are off-limits due to bad credit?
You know, not everyone gets into college, either. There's currently an issue in Colorado over the fact that graduation requirements for high schools aren't high enough to match entrance requirements for colleges. So rather than make high school students learn more, or accept the fact that some of 'em aren't good enough or ready for college - they're dropping/lowering the admissions standards to get into college. That's just sick in my book. We're dumbing down so much in American schools, why bother having standards at all? Let's just throw some books at children, expect them to read them, realize they probably won't, then take a nap and wait for the next school year? College is for people who are smart enough and driven enough to warrant getting in. If you're not one of those people, you don't belong in college. Yea, even if you DID get in. Quit wasting everyone's time and just get a job.
Then there's the groups of people who try to convince you that without a degree, you'll never climb that ladder or gain entry to the job positions and types of "work you'll enjoy doing." I say that there are plenty of positions open where the work is something you can enjoy doing. Unfortunately, jobs aren't just about the work, they're about the company/business and co-workers and other employees and bosses that make a job a JOB. If I didn't have bosses yelling at me and deadlines that are unfeasible and co-workers who are a few rocks short of a box, I'd absolutely love the work I'm doing. I enjoy data analysis and reporting. I also enjoy my side-gig of writing articles like these. What it all comes down to is that you can always pick your career - picking everything else isn't up to you, it's all a crap shoot and work was never really meant to be fun.
If work were meant to be fun, they wouldn't have to pay you to get you to do it.
That's all for this segment of my Back-to-School Special. There will undoubtedly be a Part Two.
(The Colorado college stuff)
Read more!
Monday, January 08, 2007
"Dear Parent - Your Child is Fat!"
I was tempted to throw a Humor tag on this post, but then thought again as my laughter at the notion of the article in question quickly turned into fuming outrage by the time I'd finished reading. As if we don't scare the crud out of school children enough with pop quizzes, homework and - let's face it - constant news of school shootings and school-related gang violence, idiots in charge of the Hyannis Elementary School in Boston decided to step things up a notch.
Not only are they singling out overweight and "at-risk of obesity" students, they're including mom and dad in the judgemental concept by putting these warnings in letters sent home.
Hopefully some of you are saying, "No! Surely this is a horrible joke!" Hopefully there's some decency still out there among the populous who is shocked and appalled at poor-health ridicule in the form of letters to parents, wasting time of parents and teachers alike. This monstrocity needs to be stopped, people!
The school is claiming that it can hide behind a state law that requires that a school notify parents of children who are overweight or underweight, or who may be at risk of becoming so. I simply cannot believe that a note needs to be given to parents from a school nurse to REMIND them of their child's possible health problems.
"Dear Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent,
Your child is overweight and is at risk for juvenile diabetes and heart problems and other obesity-related problems later on in life unless changes are made to your child's nutrition, diet and exercise patterns.
Sincerely,
Hyannis Elementary School Nurse"
Dear School Nurse,
Being a parent who cares enough about my child to do things like SEE him/her with my EYES, I am well-aware of my child's weight problem. This problem is strictly one facing my child, and hereditarily, myself. I did not need a reminder of my child's weight problem, nor did my child deserve the embarrassment of having me read this letter or the ridicule of other children when confronted on whether or not his parent received such a letter. You may be at risk of legal action and other angry-parent-related problems in your life unless changes are made to your sense of deceny, nosiness and downright lack of respect for my child and the other children of this school.
Angrily,
Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent
And for those of you out there who think that I'm trying to sound like one of the overprotecting liberal boo-hooers I'm usually up-in-arms against - think twice. This isn't about protecting children in my mind - it's about stopping people from being idiot douchebags and wasting everyone's time and effort by stating the obvious and butting into the business of families where they are not and should not be welcome.
You think Vicki Elliott, whose 4-foot-tall, 66-pound daughter was sent home with a letter warning that she was "at risk of becoming overweight," needs a reminder that her daughter might be overweight or at risk of becoming overweight??
I'm willing to bet she's reminded of it enough when her daughter comes home crying because of the mean things kids say to her.
I'm not saying her daughter needs protection.
I'm not saying her mother is wrong or needs to be taught a lesson or given pointers.
I'm saying it's not the school's business, and it's insulting to point out the obvious and undermine parents, who can do a perfectly fine job of raising a snot-nosed brat on their own.
I'd prefer they focused on learning to f*cking count - it'll come in handy when they're forced to count calories later on in life, or at least to maybe count my change correctly while on shift at their McJob!
The original article Read more!
Not only are they singling out overweight and "at-risk of obesity" students, they're including mom and dad in the judgemental concept by putting these warnings in letters sent home.
Hopefully some of you are saying, "No! Surely this is a horrible joke!" Hopefully there's some decency still out there among the populous who is shocked and appalled at poor-health ridicule in the form of letters to parents, wasting time of parents and teachers alike. This monstrocity needs to be stopped, people!
The school is claiming that it can hide behind a state law that requires that a school notify parents of children who are overweight or underweight, or who may be at risk of becoming so. I simply cannot believe that a note needs to be given to parents from a school nurse to REMIND them of their child's possible health problems.
"Dear Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent,
Your child is overweight and is at risk for juvenile diabetes and heart problems and other obesity-related problems later on in life unless changes are made to your child's nutrition, diet and exercise patterns.
Sincerely,
Hyannis Elementary School Nurse"
Dear School Nurse,
Being a parent who cares enough about my child to do things like SEE him/her with my EYES, I am well-aware of my child's weight problem. This problem is strictly one facing my child, and hereditarily, myself. I did not need a reminder of my child's weight problem, nor did my child deserve the embarrassment of having me read this letter or the ridicule of other children when confronted on whether or not his parent received such a letter. You may be at risk of legal action and other angry-parent-related problems in your life unless changes are made to your sense of deceny, nosiness and downright lack of respect for my child and the other children of this school.
Angrily,
Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent
And for those of you out there who think that I'm trying to sound like one of the overprotecting liberal boo-hooers I'm usually up-in-arms against - think twice. This isn't about protecting children in my mind - it's about stopping people from being idiot douchebags and wasting everyone's time and effort by stating the obvious and butting into the business of families where they are not and should not be welcome.
You think Vicki Elliott, whose 4-foot-tall, 66-pound daughter was sent home with a letter warning that she was "at risk of becoming overweight," needs a reminder that her daughter might be overweight or at risk of becoming overweight??
I'm willing to bet she's reminded of it enough when her daughter comes home crying because of the mean things kids say to her.
I'm not saying her daughter needs protection.
I'm not saying her mother is wrong or needs to be taught a lesson or given pointers.
I'm saying it's not the school's business, and it's insulting to point out the obvious and undermine parents, who can do a perfectly fine job of raising a snot-nosed brat on their own.
I'd prefer they focused on learning to f*cking count - it'll come in handy when they're forced to count calories later on in life, or at least to maybe count my change correctly while on shift at their McJob!
The original article Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
