Home Ownership

Have you noticed how topical my posts are? Somehow, something in the news ends up as the topic of one of my posts. What a shocker. What is also a shocker, besides the "two in the pink and one in the stink", is that I haven't has a post in a month. So much for my stated goal of 4 a month. I would suspect that I'll have a few more in December, probably something about secular and religious holidays, appropriateness of giving cash and gift cards, and I don't quite no what else. If I really pushed it, I could get 2 a week, but they would have to be really short. 

But enough inconsequential preamble. Instead, I'll start the preamble to my actual post. 

With all the action in the markets lately, and one of the underlying causes being crash of the US housing market and to a lesser extent the decline in the Canadian housing market, this seems to be a good time to examine the benefits and costs of owning your own home as compared to renting. 

Renting is way better: Renting a place to live has many advantages over owning. While many homeowners will try to tell you otherwise, renting is considerably cheaper than owner. When cash flow is a concern, there is nothing better than renting - you know exactly what your primary costs are going to be. There may be some fluctuation in some of the utility costs, such as power or water and heating if you pay for them, but your rent is your rent. For the term of your lease, you know how much you are going to pay. And if you don't pay for your utilities, then you are really set - no worries about raises in those rates. Your month to month costs will be considerably lower than a comparable homeowner.  When you own, you pay for: mortgage, taxes, all utilities, all repairs, maintenance, insurance - and all of those can increase. When you rent, you pay rent. And you get notice if that goes up. 

Money isn't the only thing. When you rent, you don't have to worry about the place. You don't have to worry if the fridge breaks down - you just call the landlord and they replace it. You don't have to wait for the repairman either, because it is the landlord's responsibility. You just give them permission to let the repair person in.  And maintenance? None. Front walk is snow covered? Not your problem. Electrical needs to be updated? Not your problem. Furnace needs cleaning? Not your problem. 

The last benefit of renting I will mention is somewhat less tangible. Suppose you decide to move. If you rent, you put in your notice and leave, sometimes waiting for the end of the lease. If you own, you have to sell - maybe it will sell when you want, maybe not. If it doesn't, then you pay for two places while waiting for the first one to be taken of your hands. When you rent - you just leave. Your time is your time. 

Owning is the only way to go:  Owning is the best way for anybody to build up net worth. If you are going to be paying all that money every month for rent, you should get a mortgage because then at least you are building up your equity in your home. Maybe it takes 25 years to pay off a house, but when it's paid off, you live for free. If you rent for 25 years, you have nothing to show for it. And when you own your own home, it improves your credit with lenders - you can get cheaper credit than 

those who don't. 

The most important thing about owning your own home is that you don't live by anyone else's rules. If you want to out nails in the walls, put nails in the walls. If you want to tear down a wall to make a room bigger, do it. It you want to jump up and down in your living room, there are no downstairs neighbours to complain. And there is nobody telling you you can't have pets - go get that iguana! When you own your own home, you really are in control of your life. 

A less tangible benefit of owning a house is that it is a way of showing to the world that you are a responsible adult. Home ownership is making a point to the world that you are a contributing member of society; however shallow that may be, it is also the truth. People who rent are not afforded the same level of respect as people who own are. 

What I think: I think that there is a happy compromise in all this. From a financial point of view, renting and owning both have benefits: renting is cheaper, but a mortgage essentially forces you to save. If you can use the cash you save by renting to actually save and not spend, in the 25 years it would take to pay off a mortgage, you would have easily saved enough to purchase two homes. Renters get a bad rap, I think - sometime deserved, but renting can really help you financially. But the flip side to that is that there is no feeling like that of actually owning your own property - having a backyard that you can do whatever the hell you want to do can be a great feeling. I think that in the first few years, the property owns the owner; and it takes about 5 -10 years for that to change. 

How I relate: I have been both a property owner and a renter; currently I rent. Ownership can be such a chore, and if you own a condo, as I did for a while, it really isn't any different from renting - you are still stuck with the condo corp's rules. And even when you have paid off your property, you still never really own it - you are always paying taxes and utilities. So while I am happy renting now, I do want to own in the future; but I want as little a mortgage as possible. Whether owning or renting, the individual has to decide what value they place on ownership; for some, ownership has immeasurable  benefits while for others the time and money they

 give up to own is not worth the benefits. 

Weight

This post is something I have thought about a bit, for a few reasons. It is big news all over the place, and there is really not much that hasn't been covered in any number of documentaries, reality type shows, books, magazines, blogs, websites, and so on. So can I really add insight or depth to a topic that has been pretty much devoured? No, but that hasn't stopped me before. 

People with weight issues have no self control: This is basically an variation of American myth. It flows that, since an individual is the person who actually consumes the food, they are solely responsible for their weight issues. It's not like anyone is forcing food down their throats; and so if they eat too much or too little, then it is up them to fix it. Just close your damn mouth, or don't open it, or just eat right! It's not like we don't learn healthy eating habits from grade school on, so just do it!

An extension of this argument is that if people do eat unhealthily and have weight and health issues as a result, then so be it. It's just Darwinism at it's finest. People who aren't healthy are less likely to reproduce. So if some people want to eat unhealthily, let them; society doesn't need whatever gene they have that makes them eat unhealthily anyway.

As final proof of this argument, people can easily point to the same reality shows, like "the Biggest Loser", that highlight all people have to do is buckle down and change their habits. If they can do it on TV, they can do it at home as well. 

Society is as much to blame as the individual: This argument basically holds that because of constant influences in our society - such as fashion magazines and fast food restaurants - that people as a whole are less able to resist the unhealthy eating. Fast food is everywhere; we have less time; and we are less able to cook at home. This helps explain why people overeat - and unrealistic body images like those in fashion magazines and in movies, tv and

 the internet can contribute to people who develop disorders like anorexia.

An extension of this argument is that since our society is partly responsible for the situation, then it is up to society to try to fix it. This is why you will see things like healthy eating programs in schools, stomach surgery paid for by insurance policies (in the US - in Canada, it can be covered by provincial health care plans), and laws enacted banning trans-fats in certain food situations. 

As final proof of society's culpability, they will point to the fact that the average American (and Canadian, though not quite as much) is heavier that they used to be by a very large margin. They will point out that when there us a measurable increase in these things, it is now a societal problem, not just an individual problem. They will say that it is a disease just as cancer or asthma is. 

What I think: This is an issue that I have thought about a lot, and I have come up with no solid answer. Surprise surprise. I think it can be an individual issue - ultimately it has to be, because it has to be the individual that makes the change for themselves. But it also has to be a societal issue - you would have to be an exceptionally strong individual to resist all the forces aligned against healthy eating. Not just magazines - which really get too much press; I mean, how many people still read magazines anyway? - but our time constrained lifestyles, the cheapness of fatty foods, the accessibility of unhealthy choices, to name a few. So can an individual change? Certainly. Can society? Certainly. Will either? I think not. 

How I relate: I don't eat the best, and I am fairly immune to most advertising. Not completely immune - I still love my McDonald's and Taco Time. But I am conscious of how I look, and I try to avoid the really bad stuff on a regular basis. I wonder how some people can let themselves go the way they do, but I know that it is not an overnight process. I know people don't just wake up one day and find they are xxx heavier or lighter; it takes time. And bottom line, maybe the west deserves exactly what it gets - if heart disease and failed kidneys are the price of our decadence, then most of us will be okay with that.   

Should you forgive someone who has cheated on you?

This is the last post that I alluded to in my earlier posts; I think it should be a good topic. Since I dealt with the definition of cheating in an earlier post as well, I won't dwell on that too much, although it can be relevant. What I will assume that cheating is whatever you define it to be. That will keep the posts consistent.

Kick the cheater out: This school of thought stems from the belief that the relationship it self is near sacred; and a betrayal must then lead to the end of the relationship on those terms. Because the relationship is defined as not having the extra-curricular activity in it, the relationship must end. 

This is a very common way for relationships to end - with one person cheating on the other. It is in the wedding vows (you and no other) as well as being an important part of religious dogma. For many people, this is the reason to get married and divorced. If you assume that fidelity is part a marriage, then you must then assume that lack of fidelity negates the marriage. 

There a good number of smaller backups for this reasoning. You don't want your kids seeing that. You want to know that the kids you are raising are yours - the genetic argument, more applicable to men than women, but still relevant in the context of blended families. Self esteem is another reason; if you know your spouse is getting satisfied elsewhere, then what good are you? And why are you supporting them? 

Everyone deserves another chance: This could be considered a christian point of view: turn the other cheek. It also perhaps recognizes the humanity in all of us - if we are all weak, then we should be forgiven for succumbing to our weaknesses. Once anyways. Some people may hold that you should be forgiven an infinite number of times. 

Another way of looking at this perspective is that it is not the cheating itself that causes the problem, but the knowledge of it. In the event that there is no knowledge, there is no problem; and if this is true, then perhaps additional chances, once knowledge is gained, is not only worthwhile but practical. 

Finally, this perspective is often taken by people who believe that even though they do not like that their partner has cheated, they have as well. Or maybe they know that they would cheat, given the oppourtunity; or that they want to cheat and this gives them a "get out of jail free card". Or, perhaps, they may be reliant on the other person for material goods, in the case of poorer people with richer spouses. And there is always the fear that the people who said that you would never last will be proven right - and that can't happen. 

Left out of the arguments: I deliberately left out the "it was just sex" argument because it could fit into both sides.  The "dump them" side can argue that if it was just sex, then why did you do it? The give them a chance side can argue that infidelity is usually an indication of other underlying problems that need to be dealt with, and the cheating was just a symptom and therefor not grounds to end it. 

Where I stand: I stand firmly on the side of forgiveness. Not firmly, really, because I think it would depend on the exact circumstances, but I think that it is an underlying issue not a main one. This is connected to the "what is sex" blog, because it is probably easier to forgive kissing someone else that outright penetrative sex with them. I do believe that people can get through issues like this without it destroying the relationship, but that it can be a slow process to rebuild. 

How I relate: As I mentioned in the other post, I have been in the compromising positions as has my spouse; and we've been able to work through them or get past them, whatever language you prefer. This is why I fall on the forgiveness side. I think that there are definite cases, where cheating is regular that it does warrant a split, and sometimes people just don't want to forgive. The biggest problem that people suffer from is that the betrayal aspect of it very hard to forgive - no matter what people like to think of themselves. 

Well, I don't know what I'll be talking about now. I'll think of something I'm sure, and there are still many aspects of sexuality that I haven't even touched on. 

 

Birthdays

There is so much going on right now that I wanted to do a topic that I haven't touched on at all. I could talk about the Canadian election, or the American one, or the Boston Red Sox, or the Saskatchewan Roughriders, or the weather. But I wanted to talk about birthdays. The only challenge is in determining the context. So I think I'll put them in the context of:

Birthdays are just for kids: Birthdays are really a meaningless day; it's not like you actually change from one day to the next, so they are essentially just for kids. When you get older, they cease to have any real meaning; after you get the legal rights to drive, vote, drink, kill other people in wars, be held responsible for crimes, and enter into contracts, there is really no point in them. They are just hallmark days. There is no difference between 24 and 28; or 38 and 42; or 73 and 83. For kids, the birthdays are a good markers for the passage of time, but really, the start of the school year is a better marker. But kids like them, it makes them feel important, which is a feeling most kids don't get, so celebrate them. The last important birthday (in Canada, anyways) is the 19th - because then you can legally drink anywhere in the country. 

Birthdays are important for everyone: Maybe the day itself does not mean much, but they still are a time of reflection for people. It is a time that many people take to look back at the year that was, and how they have progressed as individuals, and as such, it should be maintained and continued. Plus, it is a time honoured tradition, and that only gives it value. And the milestone birthdays always mean something - 20, 30, 40, 50, 65. Because they have value culturally, they have value to individuals. 

Where I stand - I like birthdays, but I don't see much point in them. That said, I always like to go birthday parties, and I like my own as well. I like the "specialness" of them -  and even the slight extra recognition that people get on their birthdays is positive. 

How I relate: Guess what - it's my birthday this month. October is always a busy month for birthdays - lots of Scorpios and Libras in my circle of friends, I guess. So that's why I'm thinking about it. Yay birthdays!

Ok, this was a boring post. I'll do better next time. I promise.     

What is SEX?

As promised, back to the good ol' sex topic. Sex is one of our favourite things, and so it definitely should be talked about as often as possible. For women, the ability to talk about sex has often been in the abstract - for example, in discussing the characters sex lives on Sex and the City, or chatting about their own friends sex lives while carefully leaving their own out of it. For men, they are more than happy to talk about the physical aspects of it, especially involving themselves; but rarely put it in any other context: i.e, what does it mean? 

So today, I am going to talk about sex from a purely relationship standpoint, and what exactly constitutes sex for it to be considered cheating. I will leave out concepts of emotional cheating, but I do hope to address them in the future. I will also assume that cheating in the context of a relationship is a bad thing and I am not considering people who may have "alternative" lifestyles: i.e. swingers, polygamous, multiamourous, and others.  

Everything of a physical sexual nature is cheating:  This school of thought flows from the current cultural view that your spouse should be your one and only and that said spouse should be able to meet your sexual needs. It means that while, say, fantasizing about kissing someone is OK, actually kissing someone is not.

This line is very easy to define, which may be why it is popular. Hugging someone is OK. Kissing them on the cheek is OK. Kissing them on the mouth is not, groping someone is not, any oral, vaginal, anal, digital sex is not OK. Talking dirty on the phone is cheating. Talking dirty on the computer (to someone else) is cheating. Paying for a prostitute is cheating. Going to watch strippers is inappropriate and shouldn't be done, but as long as you are just going with your friends for a pre-wedding party or boys/girls night out party and you sit in the back, it's not cheating. 

Flirting, in this line of thought, is cheating. If you are in a committed relationship, then you should not be flirting with others. the only real grey areas in this package are things like one on one non-physical contact with others. This means that some people may consider it cheating to go for supper with someone of the opposite sex cheating, regardless of purpose (that is to say, if it is a business supper, there should be more than 2 people there). This can be grey because there are some work situations where those situations are unavoidable; but the main thought is that the person should not be putting themselves in the position where something could happen. 

Only genital penetrative sex is cheating: At the other extreme, we have people who genuinely believe that only if a penis goes into a vagina (or, if gay, a penis goes into an anus; if lesbian, if a finger or tongue goes into a vagina) can it be considered cheating. Everything else, while it may not be appropriate, is not cheating. Instead, it's comparable to using the partner's credit card without asking. 

This line is also clear, and may be why some people like it. Reference has to be given to Bill Clinton and his " I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky", comment, and how he justified it later by saying that oral sex is not sex. This attitude was expounded by articles published in Oprah's magazine, among others, maintaining that kids today have oral sex all the time and do not consider it sex. (Here, I will take leave to point out that I really think those articles were flawed and inaccurate, at best). 

This line of thought is held often because people who hold it believe that it is an accurate depiction of human sexual behaviour. People flirt all the time, they may kiss, they feel each other up, but it is not sex. They may still feel that such behaviour is inappropriate, but not wrong, not cheating. Cheating is a breakupable offense; those other actions are not. Getting or giving a blow job or eating or being eaten is not cheating, and hand job or getting fingered (if straight) is not cheating, phone sex is not cheating, cybersex is not cheating. 

What I think: The thing that always strikes me about this topic is that people always seem to have two sets of rules. One set for themselves and one set for their partners. They may think, for themselves, that oral sex with someone is not sex; but for their partners, kissing someone is. I have also noticed that the men and women have different definitions for men and women. As an example, men tend to consider receiving oral sex not cheating for men, but women giving it is cheating. Women tend to see it the other way: a man getting oral sex is cheating but women giving it is not. The best definition that I have come up with, for men and women,  is pants. If the pants stay on, done up, and nothing outside goes in them, then it's not cheating. Inappropriate and still worthy of a good discussion, yes, but not cheating. On the other hand, oral sex of any kind is cheating, anal sex of any kind is cheating, digital sex is cheating, but kissing someone, rubbing them outside their clothes, or sucking on nipples is not sex. Cyber sex I don't really think is cheating because you really don't know who is out there; phone sex is because you do know who you are talking to (but probably not that big a deal). Strippers, male or female, whatever happens there (subject to the aforementioned pants rule in place) is not cheating. Any financial transaction related to the action lessens the "cheating" impact. It does not remove it: paying for sex is still cheating. 

How I relate: My wife and I talk about this often, because it is a fun thing to talk about; and that was where I really noticed the different rules for men and women. From conversations with my own friends (and some people would even consider talking about sex like that to be inappropriate)  I noticed it more. I haven't has a chance to talk as much with my gay friends about it, but I have thought that because it is so difficult for some people to come out of the closet that their rules must be different. 

The other part of how I relate is, of course, personal actions. I have kissed other people since I've been with my wife, and so has she; we've both been in some "touchy" situations. What is important about those things is that we have talked about them - communicated and dealt with why we both did what we did. I truly believe alcohol lessens the impact of the actions, because many people do things that they wouldn't do when sober - present company included, but I try to watch that more now. Like any situation, it is important to set ground rules out. communicate them, and recognize that things change over time. Maybe when you were 18 you had one idea of what cheating was, but when you were 60 you had a different idea altogether.  

Let's all Vote!

Ah, the fall election season. Not the American election; although I am following it, I have no say in it so I really can't comment much more on it. No, I am talking about the Canadian federal election - the election that we are all so looking forward to; and we will all be lining up to vote in. And I'm not talking about who to vote for, but the act of filling out that X in general. So this post, while I haven't forgotten the promised posts on adultery and forgiveness, will be about voting. 

Everyone should always vote: Voting is not just a privilege; it is a right that must be exercised. If it is not exercised then a mockery is made of democracy - and we can't have that. The right to self determination in a country is one of the most important rights we have, and if we ignore that right, then we could lose all our rights. To be a citizen in a modern democracy is to vote; all other rights extend from this basic right. 

But moving beyond civic duty, there is also some personal, pragmatic reasons for voting. How can anyone claim credit for government policy you agree with; or condemn policy you disagree with; if you don't vote? How can you complain about gay marriage when you never voted? Or applaud "tough on crime" initiatives? Or even complain about municipal taxes and road conditions? Voting gives us legitimate bitching power. 

And lastly, there is the "how many people died for our way of Life" argument, which flows something like: our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan (Iraq, Germany, France, China, Rwanda, whatever) so but not voting they are dying for no reason. They are willing to give their lives to protect our way of life and to help other countries gain democracy, so not voting is like telling our soldiers that their lives are worthless to us.   

Voting has no point: One vote, one person. That's a great system. It's a guarantee that my vote won't count for anything - because there has never been an overall election decided by one vote. Ever. And if there was, it would be disputed. And you can't argue that "If everyone voted" because if everyone voted, then individual votes would matter even less. (statistically: 1 of out of a million has more relevance than one out of 5 million, and so on). 

And there is absolutely no candidate who can possibly represent me. I may agree with Harper on the economy but Dion on social policy, Layton on crime and May on the environment. And what would my vote mean anyway? Am I voting for the leader, the party, or the individual candidate? What if I like the candidate but not the party? Or the leader and not the candidate? There is no real way that my vote can be interpreted rationally.

If you combine all that with the fact that most people don't even follow the election anyways, it is better that people who don't care don't vote. An uneducated vote is much worse than no vote. 

What I think: I think that voting is a necessary evil. It doesn't really tell anyone what a nation is feeling; and there will always be winners with far less than a majority of the popular vote. So the Canadian system, while far from perfect, does represent the people fairly well, the leader of the country has always had far less votes than they should have had. democracy is the worst system of government out there - except for all the others. I disagree with Australian type systems where you are required by law to vote - but it does have a certain appeal. 

How I relate: I vote. I try to vote in every election, from civic to federal. Those citizenship lessons must have sunk in a bit. I don't think that I am really making a difference, but I do like to complain and I feel that voting gives me the right to do so. I also encourage others to do so, even when I know that they probably won't be bothered to. I wish that we had some type of proportional representation system - that would likely get more people out to vote because they would genuinely feel that their vote can make a difference.

So get out there and Vote! I'll write about sex again next time.  And I have unofficially set myself goals of 4 posts a month - so expect 2 more this month. I hope. 

 

Affairs

This post is somewhat connected to an earlier post, the one on marriage. I title it "affairs" because affairs applies more to committed relationships; if it's not serious and committed, then it's just screwing around, or possibly cheating. I think that if it is not a committed relationship, then who cares? Or if you are under 20, then lives with it - it's going to happen; either you will cheat, or your b/g friend will cheat on you. But it won't matter because you are too young have have any relevant feelings.

I should specify here that I am discussing affairs within the context of relationships where such actions are not acceptable in said relationship. There are some relationships - swingers being an easy example - where sex outside of the primary relationship is acceptable. I should also mention I am strictly considering sexual affairs - I don't really believe in emotional affairs. No matter what Oprah says. 

Affairs are bad: If you are committed to a person, you should be committed fully. And that means keeping you pants on. You should communicate with your partner, and work together to deal with any issues you have - and you should not be looking outside the relationship for sexual fulfillment. If you have sexual issues, should should try to work them out; if you can't, then you should end the relationship. 

The whole point of monogamous relationships is to be monogamous. If you break that trust, then the whole relationship is in jeopardy. You should also accept that people do have different sex drives, and that they change over time; and that people physically change over time. Including yourself. If the relationship is worth the effort you have put into to, then don't risk it by screwing around! 

The human condition in the west is monogamous relationships. This is both religious based and culturally based and legally based; people generally should try to conform to the social mores of their situation. This is doubly so for those who are married - why even both getting married, making a commitment only to break it? If you want to fight the social mores of your time and place, fine - but don't expect others to be okay with it. 

Affairs are fine: Why should you stay "faithful" to someone if they are no longer are attractive to you sexually? When you made the commitment to the person, they were a different person, and so were you. Maybe people change, but it doesn't mean you have to like it - and if you like muscular guys or girls with big tits and your spouse isn't like that any more, then you should be able to get what you want without feeling bad about it. 

Maybe the perceived social more is monogamy, but the reality is that , depending on whose stats you believe, 50% of all people will cheat on their significant others. So the reality is that people do it and people don't do it - neither one is wrong. And if society can change so that far less people are getting married, then it can change for monogamy as well. 

We live in an age of instant gratification; and there is sex every where. TV, internet, movies, videos, malls, schools, you name, there is sex. And lots of people just want sex and their spouses, for whatever reason, don't do it for them anymore. When it is just a phone call or email away (just look at Craigslist for examples), it is OK to do it. And if no one finds out, as is often the case, then no one gets hurt but people get happy. 

Where I stand (or sleep, as the case may be): I think that if you are in a monogamous relationship then you owe it to your partner to try to keep it that way. For many people, I understand that sometimes the "spark" has left, and people become preoccupied with kids and their daily lives; but that is no reason to start screwing other people. It may be reason to have a some discussion with them about what the new expectations are of the relationship - and if there is serious disagreement on things like frequency of sex, then options do need to be discussed. 

By this, I mean that, if sex is very important to one partner and considerably less to the other ( and here, I mean a huge difference - like one person wants it once a month, the other 3 -4 times a week) then something has to be worked out. If that means one person gets to have a fuck buddy on the side, then so be it. If it means that intercourse is only monthly but oral sex is weekly, then so be it. If sex is an integral part of the relationship - and that aspect changes unilaterally -  then neither party will be happy and that will lead to more problems. Perhaps the only outcome is splitting up, but that would happen anyway. 

On the other hand, if it is a small difference, like one doesn't want to perform oral sex every time, or one wants sex twice weekly and the other 3 times - then work it out. That is not justification for cheating. I do find the existence of agencies like "Ashley Madison" interesting and, over time, there may be a shift in cultural mores.   

How I relate: As I mentioned before, I am married, and as such, I have been "tempted". By that, I mean that I have seen people that I have found attractive and have wanted to have sex with - and some of them may actually have been interested in sleeping with me. I haven't though; and sometimes I've really wanted to. I also worry about my spouse - I know she has been attracted to other people, and I know I would react poorly if I found out she had been having an affair. But I trust so far she hasn't - even if she has had the means, motive, and oppourtunity to do so. 

This post has got me thinking about a few other things I think I will touch on in the next few posts. I feel a post on "what is sex? or what is cheating?" would be a good topic; and "should you forgive someone who has cheated on you" would as well. 

Animal Rights

This post is directly related to the current issue of "Philosophy Now", which has several articles on animal rights, including an interview with Peter Singer. Therefore,  I have been thinking about it and will try to address some aspects of animal rights. I will attempt to stay away from a philosophic point of view. I will also try to dwell on the extreme points of view, because they are entertaining, albeit largely irrelevant.

Animals are People Too: This is the view held by many, to varying degrees of severity. If an animal can have the same characteristics as people, then we should afford them the same rights. To most people, this is limited to mammals; to others, to anything that moves of it's own accord.  The extreme point of view holds that if we are to have any respect for ourselves, then we must also have respect for nature; this means no killing animals for anything. No research, no food, no clothing, no compassionate killing. 

This PETA view is supported by celebrities and and average folk alike; although the celebraties, for some reason, get more press.  Essentially, we should be able to live in harmony with our furry brethren, and if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone.  When it comes to animals that attack people, there is one of two responses: if it was a domestic animal (i.e. dog) then the owner trained them to be vicious and it is the owner that should be punished; and if it was wild, then we shouldn't be in their space to begin with. 

One last supporting argument for this is that many animals are capable of the behaviours that we ascribe to humans: communication, emotion, friendship, monogamy, loyalty. Since there are people who do not have these human behaviours but do have human rights, then we should at least afford animals that have human characteristics basic human rights. 

Animals are our Slaves: This breaks down to the belief that human life, in all it's forms, it the most important form of life that is out there, and every other life is subservient to the mighty human. We are given animals to do our bidding - be it in medical research, or food, or guarding our personal property. Heck, since animals are subservient, we can use them for testing cosmetics if we want. That's their role. 

Key to this argument is that animals are different than people. We really don't know what they think, or if they think; any human characteristics that we think they have are merely things that we ascribe them because we want them to have those characteristics. Is a cat really aloof? Or a dog loyal? We call them that because we want to see them that way. Maybe they can communicate, but they can't record their thoughts - and if they can't record their thoughts, then they are living by instinct alone. 

Also important is that we are omnivorous, and that a regular balanced diet includes animals - vegetarian theory aside. Plus meat tastes good - if we weren't supposed to eat them, they wouldn't taste good. And anything we eat can not be equal to us; it must be beneath us. 

What I think: I think that human life is more important than animal life; but that we should try to treat most animals humanely. I make exceptions for insects. I think that there are some interesting connections that aren't made in this debate. For example, most animal rights groups looked to Aboriginal groups for guidance, until they realized that Aboriginal groups may have had a connection to animals, but still would kill them to suit their needs. Believing in conservation is not the same as believing in animal rights. And people who are Christian should have respect for all God's creatures - but Christians are the ones who have the belief that God put animals on the earth for people to use; while it is the New agers (a generic phrase, used improperly, I'm sure) that have more respect for all life.

How I relate: I have no pets, but used to. I loved my cats and my dog, and I still like them. I also like meat. But I try to shop somewhat carefully - not because I feel guilty, because I don't, but I really find it hard to support animal testing for cosmetic products. 

Olympics!

Okay, so it's been a few days since my last post on this one too. I had some stuff happening in my personal life that made it difficult to do any blogging at all, and then the Olympics started. So all of a sudden, I'm watching Olympics every day, and so I thought that this would be a good topic for this blog. But how to present two sides to the Olympics? Well, let's see what happens. 

Olympics are Good: Olympics encourage people - every demograph, from every country - to seek out the best in themselves. We are inspired by our athlete's performance, and it is the one place where the prize goes to the top performer - no questions asked. If you run the fastest, you win. If your team runs the fastest, they win. No "A" for effort, or a ribbon just for showing up. You work hard, you win.

Our Olympic athletes are Role models for our young people. They come from all walks of life, from rich countries and poor countries. Seeing our athletes perform and do well is important to us, it raises our national pride levels, makes us proud to be from wherever we are from. We may come from Trinidad and Tobago, but if the fastest sprinter is from Trinidad and Tobago as well, the world looks at our little country different. A star is s star, and this is a place to shine. 

This is a venue where everyone is the same. It doesn't matter what colour your skin is, what language you speak, what accent you have, what religion you are. Egyptians race against Israelis. Irish against English, Muslim against Christian. It truly is democratic. 

Then there are the economic benefits for the region the games are hosted in. In addition to the immediate impact, the facilities created for the games will be used for generations to come. The games allow a region of a country to showcase itself to the world, to elaborate on why everyone should come back again and again. 

Olympics are Bad: All the Olympics do is highlight how out of shape westerners are. While we sit at home and watch the Olympics on TV, we get a momentary burst of energy to go walk to the fridge. but then that passes. Most of realize that we can never be an Olympian, and never will be; and that compared to the specimens we watch on TV, we are actually pathetic. 

How can the athletes be role models? We don't trust them - we have to monitor them with a microscope to make sure they aren't using drugs, and far to often our "role models" come out after and admit to cheating. And even if they aren't cheating, you pretty much have to give up your youth and live away from your home just you can get coaching at an early age, and when you don't make it to the games, or you lose when you get there, your dreams are crushed and your purpose for existing is gone. Is that what we want for role models - destroyed athletes with no purpose in life, and then tossed aside once they lose or the next champion comes along?

Economic benefits are a myth. Countries and cities that host the Olympics end up paying for them for years after the games have passed. This imposes a tax burden on future generations, and the businesses that came in for the games are out as soon as they are finished- leaving no taxes, no employees, no economic spin offs. When you consider the amount of money spent on the games and spent it instead on, say, health care, you could actually make a difference in the world. 

As for being a democracy - only if you come form a rich country. Niger doesn't win many medals; nor does Chile. The only countries that worry about medals at the Olympics are countries that spent tens of millions on their athletes. Somehow, starving peasants don't seem to care who wins the 100 metre hurdles. 

What I think: I like the Olympics; I'm proud of our athletes. I want them to win. I know that it is a lot of money being spent on them that could go elsewhere, but even poor people play soccer and like to be entertained by other sports. I do agree that rich countries have an unfair advantage, but that's not really news. I do think that it is good that it is harder to tell where the athletes are coming from- at  least in the western countries. What I mean by that is that even 10 years ago, the teams were overwhelmingly the same colour; but now, the western teams have many different races and names on them. This, I think, is a good thing. I am not so happy with people changing countries to compete because their own country wouldn't take them, though. I know this does give some people an oppourtunity that they may not otherwise have, but still. 

How I relate: I don't know any athletes, nor will I ever be one. (Olympic, I mean). Canada does better at the Winter games, so I like the Winter games more; but they do okay at the summer games - far better than our population suggests. And I do feel pride when the Canadians win, and I feel their pain when they lose. So keep it up Canada!

 

  

Cover songs

So it’s been a few days since my last post; sorry about that, but I’ve been in working two jobs for a couple of weeks. This means that I have less time than ever to post stuff; I barely have enough time to waste on Facebook and look up song lyrics. But that latter item got me thinking about my topic for this entry: cover songs. Okay, it’s a lot lighter than some of the other topics, but I thought it was about time to lighten it up a bit.

Cover songs are great: Cover songs, in addition to being a great new take on existing classics, are also a great way for current artists to reinterpret oldies but goodies. The current audience might never even listen to some songs of they weren’t covered by current bands / performers.

Sometimes the new version makes you go back and listen to the old version, and it can often lead to a renewed interest in the original artist’s other work as well.

Virtually every performer that exists today has covered other performers. That is the whole premise behind Karioke and the “Idol” series. Doing cover songs has given what may have been unknown performers a legitimate shot at success. Examples are the Ataris covering “Boys of Summer”, Alien Ant Farm  covering “Smooth Criminal”, the cover of “Mad World”, “Don’t dream it’s over”, George Thorogood covering John Lee Hooker’s “One Bourbon, One

Scotch, One Beer” to name a few. Even some of the now most famous performers with their own huge body of original work got their start doing cover – performers like the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Shania Twain, Kelly Clarkson; again, the list goes on.

It has reached the point where a lot of performers will do entire cover albums, or “tribute” albums, as they are often called. It is both homage to and recognition of the influence of past great performers. And it’s not like it’s a new phenomenon. We just used to call them “traditional” songs or “public domain” songs. How often has a song like “Oh My darling

Clementine” been covered? Or, for that matter, all classical music? I’m not suggesting that Michael Jackson is musically comparable to Brahams, but you get the idea.

The last point in this is that if the new artist can cover an old song well, and bring a new or different meaning to the song, then it is proof that the artist is as important as the song.

Cover songs are stupid: The only thing that cover songs do is prove that new performers have no talent – they can’t even write their own songs.  Maybe many performers did do cover songs early in their careers, but as soon as they didn’t have to, they stopped and started performing their own work. If you want to look at American Idol, Kelly Clarkson is famous for her original work, not her cover of “A Moment like This”.

Maybe cover songs do give some performers a shot at fame, but they only become famous for those songs and then they quickly disappear. If the only way you can get fame is by recording someone else’s work, then you shouldn’t be famous. Especially when so many covers sound exactly like the original. A lot of times you can’t even tell the difference between the two. That is the point of Karaoke – to sound as close to the original as possible, not to put your own interpretation on it. And most songs can’t be reinterpreted anyway – how does “One Bourbon, one Scotch, one Beer” mean anything different when George Thorogood sings it?

And the renewed interest argument is weak. I didn’t see anyone rushing out to by a copy of Dolly Parton’s “I will always love you” when Whitney Houston covered it – anymore than anyone watched the 1976 “Omen” after watching the 2006 “Omen”. Passing interest is all a cover will generate, along with some trivia geeks saying “That’s not really their song”.

If it really was the singer not the song, then nobody would write any new music.

What I think: I am, as always, in the middle. I know I have some strong opinions, I just don’t know where. Some covers have been very well done; others horribly done. In the “horrible” department, I would include Cher/Celine/Melissa’s cover of “You Shook me all Night long”, Sheryl Crow’s hack job of “First Cut is the Deepest” by Cat Steven, and any bar band cover of “Brown Eyed Girl”, just because it is so overdone. In the well done category, I would place Nirvana’s unplugged version of David Bowie’s “The Man Who Sold the World”; David Usher’s “Fast Car” originally by Tracy Chapman; and Rage Against the Machine doing “Kill a Man” by the Cypress Hill.

I do think that an artist can bring a new interpretation to a song – the aforementioned Atari’s cover as an example. Often, though, they don’t they just want to, they just like the song and I think want to show their roots – but I think that is pointless. There are occasions where the cover becomes more well known – for example, the BareNaked Ladies interpretation

of “Lovers in a Dangerous Time” has become more well known than the Bruce Cockburn song – and in situations like that I think it is a good thing. 

Sometime it is the singer, sometimes it is the song.

I particularly dislike covers of iconic songs, though. Dolly Parton, herself an icon, never should have covered “Imagine”, for example, or that horrible country cover of “Piece of my Heart”. Whenever a song is very closely associated to a particular performer / group, the risk in covering it is great. A cover of “Hotel California” would bear that risk; as would a cover of “Thriller”, “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, or even “Wannabe” (not that anyone would cover that). Surprisingly, I like most of the covers of “Stairway to Heaven” because they tend to be completely different; they don’t try to replicate Led Zeppelin. 

I should probably differentiate here between “iconic” and “one hit wonders”. If someone were to cover “Steal My Sunshine” that would be fine, because it was Len’s only song. But a song like “Imagine” was definitive John Lennon, and the best of his huge body of excellent work. So a cover of “Come on Eileen” may be fine – it may still suck as a song, but I wouldn’t have a specific problem with it because it was Dexy’s Midnight Runner’s iconic song.

How I relate: I don’t. I have no vested interest in cover songs, I just like music. And everyone relates to music. And cover songs. 

And if you’re counting this is my second post about music, and I have revealed a lot about myself so far, probably enough to do a profile. 

Oil Prices

Oil prices

Again, this is a note that may have people wondering about the relevance of the topic. But there are good arguments on both sides, I think.

High oil prices are bad: They are bad for the economy overall. The affect every facet of our lives, from how our cities and suburbs are designed and how we go on vacation to how much our bananas cost. Higher oil prices mean we pay more for fuel for our cars, heating for our homes, which gives us less disposable income. This means that not only is there a negative

microeconomic effect, in which a family feels poorer, but also a negative macroeconomic effect. This means that because we are spending more on gas, we are spending less in other stores which in turn means an eventual slowdown in the national economy. Further, it makes it even harder for businesses to compete – and offer lower prices - because most business

models are based on a price of oil being much lower than it is now. It means less cheap imports, such as clothes, fruit, and electronics. It means that the cost of the suburbs increases. It means that there are no more weekend trips to drive to Grandma’s house, and no more weekends flying to Vegas or London.

The effects of high oil prices threaten to bring even more damage to an already damaged economy. Soon the possibility of a recession will be less a possibility and more a certainty. This means more bankruptcies, more people out of work, more jobs leaving the country. There are some people who also feel that high oil prices give even more control to oil producing nations

like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and Nigeria – which some people feel is bad. Some people also worry that the high price may lead the US (or other countries) to invade countries with plentiful supplies so they can guarantee themselves a cheap supply.

The basic argument against high oil prices is that it means we spend more money on fuel, and have less money to spend elsewhere. This is compounded by the fact that we have no control over the prices; they are controlled by demand from China and India.

High oil prices are the best thing that ever happened: They are good for the economy – at least, if you happen to live in an oil exporting country, like I do. They prices lead to more money that is available to improve social situations – like, for example, in Norway. Another indirect benefit comes in the form of less damage to the environment – it is actually getting people out of their cars and onto public transit; and not taking those unnecessary trips. Instead of couriering documents, we scan and email them. All this means less pressure on the environment: we may be able to cut emissions because we have no choice. It may lead to better public transit, or more efficient vehicles.

High oil prices will force innovation. We, as westerners, have been  complacent for far too long, and have gotten used to cheap fuel, cheap transportation, cheap heat. When the “cheap” part disappears, innovative companies will develop thing that will bring that back – like a cheap

electric or hybrid car, or alternate heating for homes, or different types of gardens so that food doesn’t have to be transported so far. 

It will also change the ways that cities look. In North America, we tend to build big cities with suburbs, because we have the space for it and the cost of getting to it has been cheap. Now, fuel prices will make living in cities more attractive – if driving to work is too expensive, then living

in a downtown becomes practical. It will lead to revitalization of our cities, with more dense developments in older neighbourhoods.

What I think: I think both, as usual. I really hate paying the extra cost, and it does make me not want to do extra things, which is generally bad. But I think this is like a flu vaccine – some short term pain, maybe even negative side effects, but long term it will benefit us. That said, I don’t expect people to give up the suburbs and flock to the city on public transit while eating locally grown produce, but I think those changes will start to happen. I really hope that the high fuel prices will put a serious damper on Wal-Mart, because they rely so much on cheap imports. When the imports become more expensive, I hope their business model falls apart.  

How I relate: I think about city planning and design a lot, although I’m not involved in any of it. I live in the downtown of a city and have easy access to public transit, and this is the main reason why I use it – because it’s easy. I believe that most people are like that; they will do

stuff if it is easy, and higher oil prices will make it easier to for politicians to make changes.

As I mentioned before, I am married, and both my wife and I work. We have 1 car, which works fairly well now, but there will some changes coming that will make us re-plan some things. Fuel prices will definitely affect our lives in the next few years – where we live, if we get another a car and what kind, where we work, and how we vacation. Even how often we visit our

parents.

Whiny email, and response to it

This pretty well matches our generation. When did it all change?

This is dedicated to those Born 1930-1979!

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank koolade made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because .

WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day.

And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride Down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound, CD's or Ipods, no cell phones!, no personal computers, no Internet or chat rooms....... WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them! We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or Rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever! The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

If YOU are one of them . . CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good. And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!

Now that you have read this stupid email, let me break it down for you:

“This pretty well matches our generation. When did it all change? 

This is dedicated to those Born 1930-1979! TO ALL THE KIDS

WHO SURVIVED the 1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !! “

Okay, this is a very broad period. 50 years, 5 decades. From the 30’s to the seventies –this covers the pre-boomers, the early and late boomers, and gen x. Drawing comparisons for those huge demographs is ridiculous. There may be some similarities from generation to generation, but there are also huge differences as well. Put another way, we are dealing here with people

who are anywhere from 28 to 78 – as much as 4 generations. That’s just stupid. The opening line – this pretty much matches every generation. And it changed a lot over 50 years. Also, I know the author is trying to be funny, but the key word is “survived” and I’ll deal with that as we go through this.

“First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.”

This is why the infant mortality in the 30, 40s, 50’s and 60’s was so high – because people didn’t know that all that shit was bad during pregnancy.No, all infants didn’t die but a lot more did. Birth weight then was half of what it is now. And this is inaccurate anyway: there is nothing wrong with aspirin, nor in there any problem with tuna in a can. At the time, when people were taking a lot less medications, things like aspirin wouldn’t have had any effect anyway. And blue cheese dressing? That didn’t happen. The only dressing that existed were French, Italian, and 1000 island.

“Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.”

Actually, we weren’t put to sleep any particular way – at least the ones on the 30s – 60s. They were just put asleep, and they probably didn’t have cribs, it was more likely just a small bed. And they probably weren’t painted, either; that would have been too expensive. It was only in the late 60’s that it was recommended that babies be put to sleep on backs – and coincidentally, this was about the time that SIDS came into the public’s awareness. But experts always change their minds; when they do again and tell us to put babies to sleep on their fronts again, this whole section will be moot.

“We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.”

To start with, we weren’t hitchhiking when we were 5. That statement really doesn’t belong in this section. And even if it did, a lot of people never hitchhiked; those who did recognized the inherent danger; and this is when people started disappearing with alarming regularity when hitchhiking. This is why people don’t anymore. I suspect the person who wrote this doesn’t

hitchhike either. True, there were no childproof lids – and in the 30’s, pretty much nobody had any medicine at home. It wasn’t until the 60’s that people started buying lots of medicine for the home that the need for the childproof lids appeared – and they did start appearing in the 70’s. No bike helmets either, and a lot of kids had head injuries as a result. The doors and cabinets didn’t have locks because they were made of heavy wood, not crappy pressboard like now and a toddler had no hope in hell of opening one. And there was only one cleaner – bleach – and all good parents kept it way out of reach.

“As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.”

True, we would do all that stuff. And a lot more people died. It is well documented that people who were their seatbelts have a tendency to not die in car accidents. If you were riding in the back of a pickup, it was a special treat – and you can be assured that the people driving the pickup were driving slower because of the risk. The author of this email seems to think that safety precautions are a bad thing. They probably don’t wash their hands after going to the bathroom either, and eat raw chicken. 

“We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.”

We still would drink water from a hose if we could find any. But it’s funny, when I’m walking down the city street, there aren’t hoses all over the place for me to grab a drink. As for sharing a soft drink from one bottle, your parents told you not to do it because it was gross, not because they thought you would die. Sometimes, parents even gave you a separate glass and you didn’t all have to drink from the same bottle. I’m pretty sure the term “backwash” has been around since the 30’s.

“We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank koolade made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because:”

Maybe you did, and you probably still do and have diabetes as a result. We also didn’t eat every 5 minutes, which is probably more on point. Most people I know only ate white bread and koolade (sic) because it was cheaper. So you probably weren’t overweight because you were poor. White bread and koolade (sic) were popularized in the 60’s anyway; people before that ( in the 30s – 50s) didn’t have them. Cupcakes were a treat, not a regular thing. Same with butter - it was expensive.

“WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING! We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.”

This is quite true for some people. But what is ignored in this statement is anybody who lived in a city. Since Canada/US (I suspect the writer is American) was largely rural until the 70’s, this would be true – because when you live in a town of 2000, everyone knows who you are, where you live, and strangers are beaten as soon as the get to the town limits. This is still true in the rural parts of the country as well as some isolated suburbs. And even if it was true, parents didn’t give kids absolute freedom – they still has to check with their parents, and they only got to stay out until dark when they reached 10 or 11. Somehow, I think there might be an issue for City dwellers letting their kids disappear in a city of 1 million for 12 hours.

“No one was able to reach us all day.”

So if something did happen to you, the person who snatched you would have a day’s lead. Or that well you fell in would fill with rats.

“And we were O.K.”

Obviously, if you wrote this. But a lot weren’t.

“We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.”

Did anybody actually build a go cart? Maybe 5 % of boys did. Now, they learn that if the DVD player is not working to check if it is plugged in.

“We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound, CD's or Ipods, no cell phones!, no personal computers, no Internet or chat rooms....... WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!”

No, we just had comic books and board games and Pong and Atari and arcades and regular phones and TV with 2 channels that we watched for hours anyways and picture disks and radio and records and tapes and 8 tracks and movie theatres and pool halls and regular books. What does this writer think that the internet and chat rooms and cell phones are for? And not every kid had friends; if you were one of the ones who didn’t fit in to your town, then you pretty much stayed inside. And if you did fit in, you made fun of the ones who didn’t; thus making them more isolated. Or if you had any disability, then you pretty much had no life ever. This author is complaining about internet and PCs, but they sent this message out on email. The irony, I trust, was lost on them. 

“We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.”

Actually, read some law reports. Lawsuits have been around pretty much since the lawyers crawled out of the muck. If your parents were too dumb to file a lawsuit when you fell out of the loft of that barn you broke into, too bad for you. You could be rich instead of writing whiny emails. There were less lawsuits, of course; back then a company could put whatever they

wanted into the water or air or ground and not worry about having to be responsible for any damages is might cause. What a bit of carcinogens anyway? Want to buy a house in Love Canal? And if a dog got loose and mauled you, the owner would never face any charges – too bad about the 30 rabies shots you had to get.

“We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.”

Why would you eat worms and mud pies? You were one messed up kid. Your parents told you not to do that because it is gross. Do you still eat worms and mud pies? If not, why not? Do you serve mud pies and worms when people come over? Obviously you think it is tasty. And why did you specify “mud pies made from dirt”? That’s not a complete recipe. You forgot the water.

“We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.”

Only some kids were given BB guns. Most of the kids I knew didn’t get them; and some still so. Some even get real 22’s – isn’t that better? Maybe we should start giving them AK47’s like they do in certain war torn countries. There’s not enough violence as it is, and a BB can’t even kill a cat. Sticks and tennis balls? Not if you had a BB gun. And kids still play games with sticks and tennis balls. The kids from the 30’s and 40’s only had sticks, though; tennis wasn’t popularized really until the 60’s. And as long as we only put a few eyes; we all had 2 anyway, and we can all afford to lose some.

“We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or Rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!”

OK. And? Kids today still do. Or they call them to find our if they are home first. Maybe your kids are just pathetic.

“Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!”

Most Little Leagues still do. And even back then, for the younger kids, it was always everyone gets in. Look at the movie “The Bad News Bears” for example. All schools have tryouts for their teams, and they will inevitably create “a” and “b” teams. Everyone knows that the “a” team is the real team.

“The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!”

Only because they couldn’t afford a lawyer. And most parents I know now have no problem leaving their kids in jail overnight. So you don’t side with the law, then, and would never bail you kids out. Your kids will be happy to know that they can count on you for support. 

“These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever! The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.”

Of course, none are named. Inventors like the ones whom invented the cell phone, the I pod, CD’s, cable, nintendos? Those kind of inventors? Or risk takers like lawyers that sue for negligence? And risk takers like the ones who made bungee jumping and skydiving normal? Or risk takers who send out unsigned bitchy emails? Or organized crime leaders? And now its “these generations” not “our generation”. Realized the error a bit late, I think.

“We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!”

No other generation has had that of course. Unique to those born from the 30s to the 70’s. People born in the 20’s never had to go to war in the 40’s; and people born in the 80’s don’t create new products all the time. Screw everyone else in the world before or after that. It’s not like airplanes or cars or engineering existed before the 30’s. And we learned how to deal with it so well, we send out bitchy emails to complain about it.

“If YOU are one of them . . CONGRATULATIONS!” 

Thanks. Can’t really critize being congratulated for having a fortuitous birthday. Pat self on back.

“You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good.”

I had the luck to grow up as a kid, into an adult. Now which generation were the lawyers and government reps from? Oh right, they were born from the 30’s to 70’s. And really, what regulation? What in this email can’t you still do? Eat worms? Let your kids run around unsupervised from dawn til dusk? Side with the law? Give your kid a BB gun? Drive around without a seatbelt and your kids in the back of the truck? Eat cupcakes and drink water from a hose? Get over yourself.

“And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.”

What? Kids today won’t consider their parents to be lucky or brave, just like we didn’t, and our parents didn’t, and so on. They might wonder how we managed to live past 5 at all.

“Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!”

No. That’s just stupid. And when you fall on them because you are old and weak, I’d give you some pills but I can’t get the childproof caps off. I hope a mud pie made with dirt will cure you.