Interesting poster

[grammafreddy]

Loed ...

Now, THAT was an excellent post.

Thank you.

[NAB]

".....and some of this is [the adult child’s higher] expectations.”

Most of those "high" expectations and instant gratification came as a result of record consumer debit. They grew up in an era where everything they bought, house, condo, etc, would instantly appreciate and the increases would go on forever.

The twenty and thirty something's had never been through a major downturn, all they ever experienced was prosperity, and assumed it was the norm.

That is what you gain with age, perspective.........

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/life/succes ... story.html

Sometime back in the 70s-going-on-80s we decided that people were basically miserable. There was no empirical evidence for this, but we thought that nobody was very happy.

........rather than pass this woeful state of depression on to our children, we decided to change the world. We loaded up our kids with self-esteem and convince them that every worldly delight was within their grasp. All they had to do was set their mind to it, and they could accomplish anything. Nobody looked at this strategy very closely; for example, we didn’t bother giving these kids tools like self-discipline. We preferred to emphasize attitudes like entitlement. Regardless, most people and institutions fought the self-esteem revolution with a vengeance. Kids were cocooned and coerced. Nothing unpleasant ever crossed their teeny horizons and we told them over and over, that they were special little beings. Whenever anything disagreeable raised its ugly head, the cry of “What about the children?” would echo throughout the land, and that was the end of that. Likewise, nothing short of “excellent” was ever sufficient praise for these kids — even for the most modest efforts. This tyranny went from toddler to teenager and for twenty years, it ruled the world. There are still traces of it kicking around today. Believe me, you’re taking your life in your hands if you try to get between a hovermom and her cub.

Let me take a minute to clarify. This isn’t every thirty-year-old in North America, but there are a lot of them.

The stunning part of this scenario is that the whole crowd still believe they’re the centre of the universe. They think there’s something wrong with them, and they’re looking around for a get-fixed-quick-scheme. You and I both know this is ridiculous but for the last five years or so, there’ve been any number of books, blogs and websites written about this. They all focus exclusively on the rude awakening the vast majority of these self-esteem babies have been suffering. The latest hocus-pocus is something called self-compassion, a kind of Stuart Smalley “give yourself a shake” therapy. As far as I can tell, nobody, including the proponents, has any idea what it’s supposed to do. However, depending on who you talk to, it can mean anything from auto-induced tough love to a hot bath with candles and incense. The only universal is the 30-somethings are buying this stuff by the carload, and nobody ever says, “Life is tough. Get off your *bleep* and get used to it.”

Read more: http://wdfyfe.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/ ... lf-esteem/

[Loed]

Great links NAB, always a good read.

Again, while everything is our own personal choice, encouragement and examples set shaped who we are these days.

The generation that raised mine made a lot of mistakes when it comes to child rearing. IMO.
I only say that because I was raised relatively separate from this hustle and bustle. When I failed, I failed and had to start over, I wasn't babied until I got it part right and then shuffled forward.

So many of my friends are exact pictures of those threads. Bookshelves filled with self-help books, degrees with no direction, consumption at an unnerving rate. It's disgusting, but it's those people that need to wake up and realize if they want change they'll have to work hard at it. Work hard and get no thanks.

[kina]

Of course it doesn't, but it strongly infers it. The "it's all about me, me, me, now, now, now" crowd is hard at work it seems. Unlike the elder generations (the grandparents) who, for the most part, want only what is best for their kids and grandkids, and most often vote that way.

Nab

I, and all the rest of my young counterparts, are currently living in what that older generation has laid out for us. Frankly, I am not impressed with the circumstances we find ourselves in. Poverty, crime, corruption to the core, lack of unbiased education, social systems which offer more hindrances than help, unsympathetic employment opportunities that always require "relevant experience in the field" (which seems to promote more "networking" than knowledge), etc...

The reason we are in this situation is because it was the older generation that was always part of the

"it's all about me, me, me, now, now, now" crowd.

The only reason they are now wanting to "band together in brotherhood" is because they realize how wrong they were in the past, but don't want to admit the mistake.

Granted,this same older generation has in the past fought for their rights and freedoms so many times and for so long. Anybody remember the Columbia University Protests of '68 to give an example? Yet in the end they let those same rights be taken away, by a small elite group that today are dictating to us ALL our lives. This is not about "us against you guys". I value all that the past generation had achieved. But you have to admit that, because of falling into the temptation of comfort, you've let all that you've fought for go to waste. I know it's hard to see but it's the younger generations turn to try to fix this and make it better. And it's not going to work through elections. It's a new age now, old tactics don't work anymore. Experience is one thing. Being outdated is another.

Politics had been turned into more of a soccer match than a real debate. People pick their sides and whoever has the most fans wins the prize of dictating to us what our lives will be like. The only problem is, it doesn't matter who you pick, because whoever get's elected, will give the same result. I don't see many younger people in our government, so already we are lacking representation. And those few young ones that do come close to making it, are just swallowed into the "networking" cycle created by the older generation and completely loose their youthful energy and young point of view. That is why we don't really participate in elections: because we know it won't change a single thing for us.

As far as the poster is concerned, this was a desperate attempt to try to convince younger people to come to elections, not a wish to insult. In the last couple of years more and more people have realized that politics lacks any coherent structure and the voter turnout has become less and less. Nobody sees the point in going anymore, because the system is rather wrecked.
The only way we can help is to help each other, not divide ourselves over our age, gender, race, religion, social background, and even political affiliation.

I'm sorry to break this to you guys but you screwed up pretty bad. That's why I'm not that comfortable with the older generation choosing my future considering their past record in this area. And even if it wasn't so, why should they be the ones choosing our futures for us? I don't see any problems for the older generation to go and vote in order to insure that issues that are relevant to them are met, but deciding what we are supposed to do with our lives is taking it a bit too far, don't you think?

[grammafreddy]

Once a thread gets past the hurling of insults and settles down to constructive dialogue, It definitely improves the quality of mere words.

The generation that raised me was in fact almost a generation before it - in other words, my parents were almost old enough to be my grandparents. All my friends' parents were at least 20 years younger than mine, and the child-rearing philosophy my parents used was not the same permissiveness my friends had. My dad was an engineer and was a military man, my mom was a schoolteacher of the old school mentality. My upbringing was strict and was based on education and fugality. We didn't even have a TV until I was 13 and even then watching time was very limited and controlled by my parents. I doubt I even knew how to turn it on and I was more interested in books than TV and in making things and going places on my bike than I was in sitting still watching "the box".

While my high school class mates were down at Hot Sands Beach getting stoned 24/7, singing about flower power and rebelling against anything they could think of that hindered their "free" lifestyle, joining the war in Vietnam or protesting it, and going wandering off to "search for themselves" in San Francisco, I was outside it all, working part time and fighting to make sense of algebra and getting in trouble in home ec class because I'd already been cooking and sewing since I was 8 and rebelling to do it my way. Clearly there was a disconnect in the way my peers and I looked at the world and what influences were shaping us.

While other people in my generation embraced the socialist concepts of Trudeau's 15 year reign in Ottawa, my conservative upbringing rejected them. When asked to organize a "Trudeaumania" rally for young people, I refused the offer. I understood and accepted some parts of socialism and recognized the necessity to protect certain segments but the widespread issues of entitlement being generated didn't make sense to me. I ultimately failed algebra, but I did know about debits and credits and I did know about balancing the books and, later in young adulthood, I learned first hand from my friends the disastrous results of "buy now - pay later" and "fun before responsibility" that was so prevalent then and which continues today. I drank coffee at their kitchen tables as they blamed their financial woes on everybody but themselves and I fought with my own spouse over the use of credit cards and loans and struggled to dig my own family out of debt.

So, today when my kids are grown with families of their own, I attempt to pass along to the upcoming generation(s) the fallacy of consumerism, the difference between need and greed, the absolute "must" in making budgets and living within one's means, and the disasters of living on credit. I cringe and despair over the public school system that teaches socialism and globalism before fiscal responsibility and brings yet another generation into a world of debt - personally, nationally and globally.

And, I expect to fail.

I expect the hold is too great, that the western world has become so conditioned to collective socialist thought that there are not enough independent-thinking people left to bring things back into balance.

The only bonus I personally get from this is that the left-leaning politicians are now wooing the Boomers and promising more, more and more, and if they are elected, my standard of living in my aging years is going to improve. The ramifications to the younger generations is that they will be paying for it via higher taxation and reduced services and income for themselves and their families. Taxing businesses more will mean loss of jobs for the younger ones, reduced opportunities and higher prices as business passes all taxation on to their customers.

When I urge young people to vote for fiscal responsibility over social programs I get slammed by the "young whippersnappers" who think I am working against them. In truth, I am working against myself and all people of my generation in order to enact a better future for our country's young people. By not understanding debt and all the ramifications of debt and debt-servicing, they will kill their own futures just as surely as the Trudeau voters did for 15 years. It's just history repeating itself. Sure, the governments at all levels can give more, but they also take more to pay for it. The more debt they incur on your behalf, the more they have to collect back from the working public - and the less the working public has to keep for themselves to pay their own bills.

Why do I do it then? Why bother to attempt to educate young people? Well, he's 11 years old and he is the future. He's the third generation of fiscal irresponsibility. He'll have no future if we keep on the way we are, blaming governments and past generations and demanding more while not accepting our own role and responsibility for balancing the books and living within our means.

I am encouraged by some young people today who have grasped the concept of doing more for themselves, planting gardens, wanting to know how to be more self-sufficient and how to keep more of their money in their pockets. They home-school instead of looking to government for handouts for child care, they are more active in their children's lives and they have a stronger bond with their kids than others have. They have jumped off the race track and redefined their priorities. I salute them and encourage them. I'll help them any way I can.

[Ranger66]

Fiscal responsibility is a good thing no one argues with that. What is it? 29 billion dollars for 65 jet fighters, a blank check to build jails when crime is decreasing or turning parts of the country into giant tailing ponds. I would suggest there are other directions to go and another way to change our path. This may not even be available to us at this time but we need to start looking and stop drifting unguided.

[kina]

I am encouraged by some young people today who have grasped the concept of doing more for themselves, planting gardens, wanting to know how to be more self-sufficient and how to keep more of their money in their pockets. They home-school instead of looking to government for handouts for child care, they are more active in their children's lives and they have a stronger bond with their kids than others have. They have jumped off the race track and redefined their priorities. I salute them and encourage them. I'll help them any way I can.

I will help them too. I will do it by being home-schooled (for the last 8 years), by having a great, meaningful relationship with my parents, by still sewing and knitting in the old-fashioned way because I choose to, by paying for a course by my self with saved money I collected from the ground and loose change that was given to me when I was younger, but most of all by encouraging everyone to educate themselves, have their own opinions, and most importantly live by them.
I don't have a garden yet (only some small potted plants on my windowsill) but I'm working on that one.

[bumblebuns]

There seem to be some posters (and others) who think that because the crime rate is down (which I doubt) no more jails should be built. That leads me to think that there is a belief that some crime is OK. I disagree. Crime should be eliminated as much as possible.

[nolanrh]

There seem to be some posters (and others) who think that because the crime rate is down (which I doubt) no more jails should be built. That leads me to think that there is a belief that some crime is OK. I disagree. Crime should be eliminated as much as possible.

That is the worst logic I've seen in a long time.

If I believe that the rate of leprosy is down, therefore we shouldn't build any more leprosy clinics. That does NOT mean I believe that some leprosy is okay. It means, I don't think we need more clinics because there won't be anyone to fill 'em.

Further, building jails doesn't eliminate crime.

Finally, for the last year there were statistics. the crime rate was at its lowest point in 25 years.

The national crime rate reached its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006. The crime rate dropped by 3% last year, following a 5% decline in 2005. The crime rate has decreased by about 30% since peaking in 1991, after increasing steadily
throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/8 ... 05-eng.pdf

[bumblebuns]

There seem to be some posters (and others) who think that because the crime rate is down (which I doubt) no more jails should be built. That leads me to think that there is a belief that some crime is OK. I disagree. Crime should be eliminated as much as possible.

That is the worst logic I've seen in a long time.

If I believe that the rate of leprosy is down, therefore we shouldn't build any more leprosy clinics. That does NOT mean I believe that some leprosy is okay. It means, I don't think we need more clinics because there won't be anyone to fill 'em.

Further, building jails doesn't eliminate crime.

Finally, for the last year there were statistics. the crime rate was at its lowest point in 25 years.

The national crime rate reached its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006. The crime rate dropped by 3% last year, following a 5% decline in 2005. The crime rate has decreased by about 30% since peaking in 1991, after increasing steadily
throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/8 ... 05-eng.pdf

Crime and leprosy are slightly different occurrences. If the rate of leprosy is down, but there are still lepers who are not being treated due to lack of facilities, then additional facilities are needed. Logically.

[nolanrh]

Crime and leprosy are slightly different occurrences. If the rate of leprosy is down, but there are still lepers who are not being treated due to lack of facilities, then additional facilities are needed. Logically.

I think you missed the point on your incorrect logical implication that opposition to jails implies being okay with crime; Regardless, to address your second point, is there an indication that jails are full?

[steven lloyd]

Regardless, to address your second point, is there an indication that jails are full?

I can't provide a link right now nolan; however, that is what my colleagues who are working inside the correctional centres are telling me. I think that offenders being double and triple bunked in cells with some sleeping on foam mattresses on the cell floors qualifies as "full" - and a breeding ground for resentment and violence. Can hardly wait untill those guys get out.

EDIT TO ADD: I should qualify my statement by stating any direct knowledge I have on this issue only applies to our provincial correctional centres, and I don't know if Harper is talking about helping the provinces with improvements to prison infrastruture.

[nolanrh]

Good to know, if we need jails build 'em. Jail demand seems like something we should be able to get an objective answer on.

[Urbane]

• Good to know, if we need jails build 'em. Jail demand seems like something we should be able to get an objective answer on.

I agree Nolan. If we need to build jails then let's build them and we should be able to get objective data showing whether we really need them without politics rearing its ugly head. I still think there are more creative ways to house non-violent offenders than in prisons but Steven did point out quite rightly that "house arrest" to Conrad Black would be quite different than "house arrest" to the average person. Maybe Conrad Black's punishment would be simply forcing him to move into a three bedroom bungalow with no pool and no servants (LOL). We do have to be more vigilant in not releasing violent offenders. I heard a stat earlier today and unfortunately I was in the car and didn't write down the time frame. But in Canada, over about a 25-year period (give or take a few years), there were 500 murders committed by people released from prison. Not good.

[kina]

Listened to the Live Election Special with John Rex yesterday over CBC radio and heard some interesting things said about getting the young out to vote for this upcoming election.
The only way you'll be able to hear it again is through the iTunes podcast, but here is the link: http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/cros ... d279231149
Just open up the one from April 10th, 2011 and listen to the discussion topic started at 28 minutes into the program.

I found it interesting that some of the interviewees used tactics of getting the young out to vote through convincing them they had a future in politics rather than proving themselves as politicians that the young actually feel safe to vote for.

I can't help remembering how in 5th grade I had "Women in Canadian Government" as a research paper. I mostly picked them according to what was on the shelves at the local library and came up with Kim Campbell, Alexa McDonough, Joy McPhail, Maude Barlow to name a few. I became a bit disenchanted with politics when I saw how each woman got disappointed in Canadian government themselves. In the VHS I picked up about Maude Barlow. I still remember how she said that her biggest mistake was getting involved in politics by way of running for the Liberal nomination.

Later I started getting more and more interested in current political trends, but I still would never even consider become a part of it until politicians either start actually living up to the promises they make, or start paying for the one they break. Until it becomes transparent, I want nothing to do with it.
All I can do in the meantime is work on what I can change, what is closest to me so that I can truly have an influence on it.