The Ethics of Online Journalism Correction

People make mistakes, especially writers. They use the wrong word sometimes, or they don't realize a sentence came out meaning the exact opposite of what they meant to say.

Reporters can be the same way, of course. Maybe they got a fact wrong, or further revelations make something they claim in a story untrue?

In the era of print journalism, corrections would have to be made in later editions. They would have a corrections box that would say something like "in yesterday's story on President Obama's speech, he was identified as President of the United Kingdom. He is, of course, President of the United States. The Journal-Post-Picayune regrets the error."

They didn't report every error, and accusations of getting the story wrong (intentionally or unintentionally) could still be leveled at a newspaper, but the fact that the story was written in a certain way would be indisputable. Somebody could grab yesterday's edition and show what was actually written.

With online journalism? For some reason, journalistic institutions don't seem to feel the need to do that anymore.

Sometimes it's relatively harmless, changing a misidentified person or the spelling of a name. Other times, though, it's particularly egregious and could easily be seen as the outlet attempting to cover its tracks.

Take the Associated Press story about the hostage stand-off in Alabama, where a man shot and killed a school bus driver and took his 5-year-old son hostage.

As shown on Bob Owens' blog, one term keeps getting changed.

When talking about what the man was known for in the neighborhood, the article originally said that he had patrolled his yard with a "flashlight and shotgun." It was later changed, with no notice, to "assault rifle." Hmmmmm. Think that might have something to do with the discussions currently going on in the United States?

Owens then notices them quietly (and again, without notice) changing it back to "shotgun," and then how it was subsequently changed to "firearm." He has a screengrab of the article stating it's an "assault rifle," however.

Commenters have pointed out that it was then changed to "long gun" with a statement that the gun had not been identified.

It's actually quite confusing, with one of the links mentioning a change now going to a more recent article that doesn't even mention how he used to patrol his yard.

No matter whether it was error or bias, where's the accountability? Why don't news organizations append the correction at the bottom of the article when they update it?

Even worse, I've seen some update or re-write whole articles at the same links without any notice whatsoever. If you receive a link to a news story where a friend of yours says "Can you believe the government did this?" and you can't see what your friend is getting upset about, it's very possible that the reason is because the article was edited between your friend sending it to you and you actually reading it and the offending issue is no longer there.

I'm not saying that every misspelling correction should be mentioned. If your article mentions the "Untied States of America" and you correct that to "United," fine. You don't need to tell the reader that the article has been changed. But when you get a fact wrong, or further information is added to the story, I believe it's the responsibility of the news organization to alert their readers to the change.

Something to the effect of "the above article originally said the man patrolled his yard with an assault rifle. Since there is conflicting information about what type of gun he used to patrol his yard, this has now been changed to 'long gun.'"

Perfect! Yes, they can still be accused of bias for using the original term ("yeah, sure it was a 'mistake'!"), but they can't be accused of trying to cover their tracks.

The number of people who trust the media is falling further and further all the time. Accusations of bias fly hot and heavy (and yes, full disclosure, I agree with a lot of the accusations). Actually noting corrections and changes to your articles won't change those accusations, but it would inhibit any accusations of them trying to hide what they're doing.

It would be a start.

I'm not letting bloggers off the hook. Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air always notes when he's made a correction or a change (I think the other bloggers over there do too; I just can't remember any specific instances). I try to also (though that would require an actual readership to hold me accountable).

Whitewashing your errors (or your bias) is never a good thing. It makes you look sneaky and just adds to the horrible reputation that journalists and journalistic organizations have.

"Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along" is a running joke on the Internet in regards to trying to get people to ignore something.

It's funny because it's true. Too often, that's the reaction of people in power trying to cover up their mistakes or their biases. Not acknowledging your changes is an excellent way to do that.

Edit (2/5/13): The LA Times gets it right in this story on how people don't want autographs anymore (something I may blog about later this week). Assuming that they don't change the article again at some point.

Mom: "I Don't Want My Preschooler to be a Gentleman"

What's this? Another post on chivalry and manners? Is this becoming the "chivalry and manners" blog? (Hmmm, maybe that's an idea...)

I couldn't help myself when I saw this post in the Style section of the New York Times (h/t: I believe it was Instapundit yet again, but it's been a week so I'm not sure).

In the "Motherlode" part of the Style section ("Motherlode?" As the name of a parenting column? Ain't that just adorable?), Lynn Messina writes "I don't want my preschooler to be a gentleman."

Messina opens the blog this way:

"My 4-year-old son, Emmett, swallows a spoonful of cereal and asks me if I know what a gentleman is. Surprised, I tell him I have some idea; then I ask what the word means to him.

“A gentleman lets girls go first,” he says, explaining that every day at naptime all the girls go to the bathroom before the boys."

She is horrified that her young boy "just got his first lesson in sexism" by a teacher who, she says, no doubt means well.

I personally would say that the teacher is making it way too simplistic, though maybe that's because of the age-level she's dealing with. I don't know.

Anyway, she goes on to lament that her views seem out of step with the mainstream. "Almost everyone I mention it to thinks it’s lovely and sweet. What’s the harm in teaching little boys to respect little girls?" (Because I guess respect is a bad thing?)

But wait, there's more! While she doesn't like it as a mother, she's horribly offended as a feminist. Because didn't we get rid of treating women differently thirty years ago? Perish the thought! It's horrible that men would treat with women with respect and courtesy even beyond what they would give to any man! You're an evil scumbag if you beat a woman, but you're also an evil scumbag keeping women down when you open the door for them or offer to lift a heavy suitcase!

Pure evil, it knows no bounds.

But she sees through men's evil plans:

"Letting girls use the bathroom first isn’t a show of respect. It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight. A true show of respect is paying us equally for the same work, not 77 cents on the dollar, which is the current average. That’s the world I want my son to live in and I seriously doubt it will ever happen as long as women believe men should hold the door open for them."

Yeah, because men just want women out of sight completely, and that's the only reason they would treat a woman with extra respect.

I want to highlight something Lee Habeeb wrote on National Review Online, called "The War Against Black Men," because I think it speaks to the cultural aspect of this issue.

Habeeb talks about how the nation (he's talking about Chicago, but I think it's a societal problem) doesn't have a gun problem, it has a father problem. Or lack thereof.

What pertains to my point is this:

"When young men don’t have fathers, they don’t learn to control their masculine impulses. They don’t have fathers to teach them how to channel their masculine impulses in productive ways.

When young men don’t have fathers, those men will seek out masculine love — masculine acceptance — where they can find it. Often, they find it in gangs."

He's not talking about how men treat women in this article. He's talking more about violence in general.

But it does bring to mind something that I also think is a problem in this society where men aren't taught to respect women, where misguided feminists think that treating a woman with an extra bit of respect and courtesy is somehow demeaning them. The combination of the two can be quite toxic.

When women aren't respected in society, you get this.

Fathers are an important aspect of that training. Boys learn from their fathers how to treat women, because they live every day seeing how their father treats their mother. There are other influences as well, of course. Evidently Messina's son's teacher is an influence too.

Of course, I'm not saying that it can't be taken too far, and some men do treat women this way because they don't think they are capable of doing anything themselves. Holding the door and carrying things for your wife doesn't mean anything when you also verbally demean her and treat her as useless and as somebody who should stay in the kitchen and be quiet.

But do we have to throw out the good stuff with the bad? Why does respect have to be thrown out with the condescension?

Messina goes on to say that in her mind, a gentleman lets other people go first, regardless of gender. "If two boys reach the top of the slide at the same time, a gentleman lets the other one go first." (why do I picture that and see two boys just constantly gesturing to each other for the other to go first, until they start fighting over who gets to go last?)

Her final paragraph is the kicker, though.

"It’s churlish to argue, so I let it go, and when, a few hours later in the park, I see him grab his soccer ball from a girl his own age, I feel a ridiculous rush of relief at his ungentlemanly behavior. Then I cross the field to remind him yet again how to share."

Why she seems to think that treating women with respect takes the place of basic civility in general, I don't know. Can't a boy learn to share without also losing the basic respect for women?

It is possible to have both, you know.

Can a woman really "steal" your man?

It's that age-old controversy. Can women and men ever be just friends?

To listen to some women (and, admittedly, some men too), the answer would be "no!"

Take Sasha Brown-Worsham over at the Stir. I was reading Instapundit last week (you really should, you know), and came across Brown-Worsham's article entitled "6 Things a Woman Says When She Is Trying to Steal Your Man." To look at her list, it would seem that she is of the opinion that men and women can't be friends. She opens by talking about her seemingly clueless husband:

"My husband is one of those men who is totally clueless to other women's advances. A women could plop down on his lap, start making out with him, and he STILL would say: "What? She just likes me as a friend."

Suuuure. Still, you spend enough time with a guy like that and you start to doubt your female instinct. Maybe she isn't a vicious man-stealing woman, intent on sleeping with my hubby. Maybe she IS just a friend. Let's not kid ourselves."

Now I admit it. I used to be one of these clueless guys, when I was much younger. I never missed any advances (or if I did, they never told me about it and none of my female friends clued me in to it), but I could be very clueless in what a woman was trying to get me to do.

I remember one night at a club, one of the women that was in the group I was out with was talking to me for a while, and she finally had to come out and say "I'm asking you to dance" because I was totally missing what she was hinting at.

But do Brown-Worsham's six things always mean that she's after your man? It can never be that she just finds value in his friendship?

Like #3. "I'll never be as pretty as your wife." Brown-Worsham says "This one is especially manipulative. It LOOKS like a compliment, but it's not. It's actually a thinly disguised way to open a conversation no one should be having with YOUR spouse."

But is it really? It's possible. But it's also possible that the woman has really bad self-image issues. Looks can be a major problem for people of either gender. Both men and women can think that they don't have anything to offer in the attractiveness department. And if you're married to a really hot woman, it's even more possible that another woman will say this (though it's still a sign of low self-confidence, as a confident woman wouldn't feel the need to even compare, or at least state it outright).

Then there's #5: "Wanna go to lunch alone?" It is possible for a man and woman to go to lunch as friends, you know. Friends do it all the time.

That being said, if the emphasis on the invitation is on "alone," then there may be a problem. Especially if the three (or four, if the other woman is also with somebody) of you do go out to lunch a lot. In that case, if she's emphasizing the "alone" part (i.e. without your wife), then there may be an issue.

Either that, or she wants to pump you for Christmas present ideas for your wife.

The comment section is almost more interesting than the post itself, as there are some great arguments made on both sides of the issue. And yes, admittedly, there is some typical Internet stupidity as well.

I think one thing Brown-Worsham is missing in her post is context. That, and patterns.

For example, context is what the situation is when one of these things happens. Is it a woman who's been friends with your husband forever? Then going to lunch is not going to be a problem. Did he tell you about the invitation or did he hide it from you?

If you're both at a bar and a woman neither of you knows says "Wow, my boyfriend would NEVER do that for me. You are SO great!" after talking to you both a bit, then yeah, she's probably hitting on him. But if it's a woman he's known (or maybe even you've both known) for a while, then it may just be her complaining about her boyfriend.

Then there are patterns. Is the woman doing a lot of this? Did she hit all six of these things in one night? Are there a lot of clandestine lunches and meetings? Or is it the occasional lunch and you know about each of them?

This list is much too simplistic, and if people went by it, it would destroy (or prevent) a lot of great friendships.

Which is sad in so many different ways.

Facebook Stupidity and a Heroic Kid

Two things to talk about in today's post, both from the same story.

A teenage Michigan boy was a hero recently, when he let a desperate woman into his house and then helped fend off her attacker.

The unidentified woman was apparently kidnapped, raped, and then the perpetrator was transporting her somewhere in her car when she jumped out and escaped. She saw the light on at the boy's house (his father had left to pick up his fiance and so the boy was taking care of his two younger siblings) and pounded on the door, calling for help. The man was chasing her.

With quick thinking, the boy let her in, made sure all the doors were locked, and didn't let the man's shouted threats intimidate him. He called his dad and the woman called 9-11. After an aborted attempt to set fire to the house, the man ran away, and was later killed by police.

It's an inspiring story, and I encourage you to go to the link above and read the details. The kid is a hero.

The story also prompted something else to pop into my mind, though, and it's the real reason for this post.

Stupid Facebook behaviour.

What am I talking about? The asshole rapist (now thankfully dead) posted to his Facebook account just a short time before getting killed, with the status update saying "Well folkes im about to get shot. Peace"

Is that the stupid behaviour? No, that's not it. In this day of social media, these perpetrators always do something like that. It may be stupid, but it's expected.

No, I'm talking about his friends.

Seriously, folkes...sorry, folks. If you ever have the bad luck to know somebody who has gone off the deep end, or who is just plain evil and you didn't realize it, and they post something like this? DON'T COMMENT ON IT!

There were 25 comments at the time of the Daily Mail screen grab, and four of them were displayed. One guy says "I don't know what I feel." Excuse me?

Another one is somehow looking for the cause of this behaviour, saying that the guy is a "sweet person" and something must have set him off. Funny, but this kind of gets in the way of the "sweet guy" impression:

"Ramsey had been on parole since last summer after serving the minimum five-year prison sentence for assault with intent to do great bodily harm, according to Corrections Department online records."

Yeah, sounds like a really sweet guy.

Another one wonders what happened to the guy he grew up with.

And the last one just made me laugh (in a seriously "WTF???" way). "Very unfortunate." And then she tags him! Like he's going to see it.

I'm not saying any of these feelings aren't legitimate. Who knows what we would be feeling if we suddenly discover that one of our friends did something like this. The guy who doesn't know what he feels? That's perfectly legitimate and logical. Sometimes we don't know how we feel. We thought we knew this person. And it turns out we don't.

So, feelings = legitimate.

But posting that on Facebook? Especially in response to a post like this?

Do you really want to take the chance that your name will be plastered all over the world in an article like this? When you're still trying to work out your feelings about a traumatic event?

Take a deep breath and realize that maybe Facebook isn't the proper place to work through turbulent emotions like that.

At least it doesn't appear anybody "liked" the post.

That would have been cringeworthy.

Is there an age limit on the term "boyfriend/girlfriend?"

Throwing this out there for you language aficionados (yes, I do use big words in posts about language...what of it?)

We all know what a boyfriend or a girlfriend is, in the romantic sense (though linguistically, maybe there is even a question regarding when a woman is talking about her "girlfriends" as well?) Is there a time where this isn't the correct term to use?

Last night, I was reading one of my favourite blogs out there, Instapundit (it's now on my blog list on the right side of the page, so check it out!), and came upon this post. It links to a fairly humorous post on "The Cut" with some other ideas for naming your romantic partner.

The list is ok, but it does bring to mind the question: since language continues to evolve and language customs change, is it a bad thing to use those terms when they might not be appropriate?

Everybody knows what is being talked about when a 65-year-old woman talks about her boyfriend. Just like everybody knows what "their" means when you use it so you don't have to say "his/her" all the time, like when you say "when a student doesn't read their email..."

Going by the letter of the grammar law (and watch out for that ruler, kiddos!), both of them would be wrong. Can a 67-year-old man really be a "boyfriend?" Maybe not grammatically, but why play around with it? You know what you mean. I know what you mean. Even Emily Litella knows what you mean (but she will mis-hear it, most likely).

I like "boyfriend/girlfriend" a lot more than trying to figure out exactly what you mean by your word choice. Is he a "lover" if you have sex more than once a week? Does a "beau" mean that you haven't had sex yet? Is there a code? A dictionary? A Google Translate site?

So have at it, those of my fans with linguistic tendencies! Is it better to just say "boyfriend/girlfriend," or does that offend your sensibilities? And if it does, what would you say instead?

Extra credit if you can explain why women can use "girlfriend" for their female friends but guys can't use "boyfriend" for their male friends.

You only get the credit if you *don't* invoke "fear of being seen as gay" in your response.

Is Customer Service Getting Better?

Not a Fido rep, or if he is, that would be quite the coincidence

I had an interesting experience with Fido yesterday. Fido is our cell phone provider, and we've been with them for just over three years, since we first bought our iPhones. Over those years, I've had to make numerous calls to their customer support line, mainly to sort out billing issues as well as to do things like add features to our account and so on. There have been a number of times where I've had to call back at a later date because something that I had called about had been mishandled on their end.

However, like the situation yesterday, it has always eventually been resolved to our satisfaction.

I bought a new phone yesterday with a new number, and in the process of setting it up, discovered that I had somehow been put on another 3-year contract in November when I had changed my plan (my contract had expired so I was month-to-month). I spoke to a manager (Kristin) who was very quick to sort things out and get me up and running. I wasn't looking forward to the fight, and thankfully she didn't give me one. She was calm, pleasant, and very efficient.

Unfortunately, the fact that my earlier call back in November had resulted in this fiasco is a strike against their customer service. That kind of thing has happened a few times, some really good customer service coming out of some really bad earlier service. Because the good and the bad balance out, I would have to give Fido a "fair" rating on their customer service.

It appears I'm not alone, and not just regarding Fido, but customer service in general.

According to Time (h/t: Instapundit), supposedly people around the world feel that customer service is getting better overall. It's not great, but maybe (as Glenn Reynolds says) it had just hit rock bottom.

Brad Tuttle at Time quotes an Accenture study that says:

"In mature markets, switching due to poor service is also on the decline, dropping from 60 percent to 49 percent (the first time below 50 percent) during the same period. Furthermore, in conjunction with this global decline in switching due to poor service, consumers are generally somewhat more satisfied with many aspects of customer service this year, with three general service satisfaction characteristics measured increasing by at least 5 percentage points from last year."

Yet Tuttle notes that people are increasingly willing to switch providers for things like cell phones, Internet, and the like.

My experiences go along with what Tuttle gives as a possible explanation for this seeming contradiction:

"If bad customer service is less of a problem, why are more people switching providers? Well, the absence of good customer service may have something to do with it. In the survey, 85% of consumers who had switched providers said that the company could have retained their business by doing something differently—resolving the problem during the first contact (rather than requiring multiple phone calls and follow-ups), for instance, or giving them some kind of reward or special treatment as thanks for being a loyal customer."

That seems to be the case, at least from what I've seen. The bad stuff has lessened, but the good stuff hasn't moved in to take its place. In Fido's case, it's also a problem that every good experience has been in the clean-up of a bad situation that was also caused by poor customer service. I suppose it could be worse. We left Telus and will never go back to them because they had horrible customer service in our experience with very few positive outcomes.

Customers are more willing to move on because they don't feel any loyalty from the company itself. It's like what we often say about sports and how players used to be on the same team for their entire careers. Now, it's not uncommon for superstars to play for multiple teams. The teams don't show loyalty to the players and the players don't show loyalty to the teams or the fans.

Companies are doing much the same thing, and it's often about money but it's not always. Good companies with good customer service work to keep their customers happy. They realize that, if you've been with them for ten years, you may deserve a little something as a reward, even if it's just not fighting them when some asinine policy rears its ugly head and confronts the customer. I have to admit that Fido has done that before, and I've always appreciated it.

But look at what happened yesterday (and it's not just Fido, they all do this). I had to buy a phone and get a new phone number in order to save almost $150. That's because new sign-ups had a really low price to buy the phone, while renewals were much higher (not as high as just buying the phone without extending your contract, but still much higher than the new customer price).

How is that showing any customer loyalty? I could have gone to any other provider since I was month-to-month. In fact, they even offered it to me. I decided to stick with Fido for a number of reasons. So because I want to stay with you as a company, I get penalized?

Or as Tuttle says:

"Consumers are likely to feel no loyalty whatsoever to their providers nowadays because, in a way, loyalty is punished. What with special introductory rates and promotions aimed at attracting new customers, the structure of many provider business models results in longstanding customers paying far more than the folks who just started doing business with the company. The reward for being a blindly loyal customer, then, is the insult of higher and higher monthly bills."

That's it exactly.

So good customer service isn't enough any more. But it can certainly help keep some loyalty. It is another addition to the "plus" column when you're weighing the pluses and minuses of switching providers, and makes the decision to switch a bit harder. If they've taken care of you, it's sometimes not a good thing to move on into the unknown.

Do you have any good or bad customer service experiences to relate? Or do you work in a call center dealing with the customers? I'd love to hear your story.

Another Look at Chivalry

I know it seems that I've beaten this topic to death (namely here, here, and here), but how about one more for the road? I promise it won't get you drunk.

Well, not *too* drunk, anyway.

The reason I'm re-visiting this so close to the last time (just over a week ago) is because Emily Esfahani Smith has a terrific article in the Atlantic called "Let's Give Chivalry Another Chance."

In the article, she brings up something that I hadn't really touched on in all of my posts about chivalry and "benevolent sexism" and all that. I have talked about the wonderful effects of this behaviour and questioned why people would want to get rid of it or be offended by it.

Emily mentions the Titanic disaster in 1912, and how 75% of the men died while 75% of the women and children survived, mainly because of the "women and children first" policy that they all followed. To them, it was important that the women survived, and for a man to survive at the expense of a woman was just unheard of.

Fast forward to earlier this year:

"About a year ago, a group of today's men were tested the way that the men on board the Titanic were. When the cruise ship Costa Concordia hit a rock and capsized off the coast of Isola del Giglio, Tuscany, last January, men pushed women and children out of the way to save themselves. One Australian woman on board reported at the time:

'The people that pushed their way on to the boat were then trying to tell them to shut the door, not to let any more people on the [life] boat after they had pushed their way on...We just couldn't believe it—especially the men, they were worse than the women.'"

What can you attribute this type of behaviour to? I would think it would be obvious. When men start feeling less chivalrous toward women (and you can call it whatever you want if you don't want to go chivalry whole hog), you get men being boorish toward women instead.

But isn't that what these women want? To be treated as totally equal? Not "equal with acknowledged differences," but completely? They should be happy that the men pushed ahead of them to get on the lifeboats first, because they would have done that if it had been a man instead of a woman!

Those who say that "benevolent sexism" is mainly a way to put down women and keep them in their place don't seem to acknowledge that this isn't what being chivalrous is about.

"Chivalry is about respect. It is about not harming or hurting others, especially those who are more vulnerable than you. It is about putting other people first and serving others often in a heroic or courageous manner. It is about being polite and courteous. In other words, chivalry in the age of post-feminism is another name we give to civility. When we give up on civility, understood in this way, we can never have relationships that are as meaningful as they could be."

When that respect is gone, you get cases like the Costa Concordia. You get men who don't know how to behave because they don't know whether the woman they're with goes along with the radical feminists or whether they would actually appreciate being treated with respect. This confusion, Smith says, is killing dating.

Another area I hadn't been aware of, so I'm glad Smith brought this up, is that some women are trying to bring chivalry back.

"Some women are trying to bring back chivalry. Since 2009, for instance, a group of women at Arizona State University have devoted themselves to resuscitating gentlemanly behavior and chivalry on a campus whose social life is overwhelmingly defined by partying, frat life, and casual sex. Every spring for the past three years, these women have gathered for the "Gentlemen's Showcase" to honor men who have acted chivalrously by, for example, opening the door for a woman or digging a woman's car out of several feet of snow."

It's spreading across the country, too.

Who knows? Maybe those who value respect, those who realize that the sexes can be equal and still be different, they will be the ones who ultimately win out.

I encourage you to read the whole article. It's beautifully written and says it a lot better than I can.

Replacing literature in the classroom

You remember reading those classic books in school, such as Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, and the like. Don't you?

Of course you do. We all had to read that stuff in our English classes. If it wasn't those, it was something else. Maybe Canterbury Tales? Or Shakespeare?

Your kids may not be getting that chance anymore.

According to the Daily Telegraph (and why isn't this stuff in any American newspaper?):

"A new school curriculum which will affect 46 out of 50 states will make it compulsory for at least 70 per cent of books studied to be non-fiction, in an effort to ready pupils for the workplace."

To do that, they're going to be removing books like Rye and Mockingbird, instead forcing them to include recommended "informational texts" like "Recommended Levels of Insulation by the the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Invasive Plant Inventory, by California's Invasive Plant Council."

Seriously?

I've seen this on an Australian news web site and a couple of blog posts, but that's it. Where is the media in this? Caiti Doyle, over at Technapex, has a great post on this, saying:

"David Coleman, one of the leading authors of the new standards, said that educators are misinterpreting and overreacting to the new requirements. These works of nonfiction are meant to be assigned across all courses, he says — social studies, science, even math classes — saving plenty of time for literature in English classes."

But Doyle goes on to remind everybody that no Math, Social Studies, Science, or any other kind of teacher is going to remove some of their assignments so that they can include this kind of reading. It is going to fall squarely on the English teachers. Thus crowding out the literature that we all knew and loved (ok, well, maybe just "knew").

Boyle also quotes Coleman as saying in a Washington Post article last year:

"Forgive me for saying this so bluntly, the only problem with . . . [that] writing is as you grow up in this world you realize people really don’t give a [expletive] about what you feel or what you think. What they instead care about is, can you make an argument with evidence, is there something verifiable behind what you’re saying or what you think or feel that you can demonstrate to me? It is rare in a working environment that someone says, ‘Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday, but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood.'"

This is missing the point so badly that he just killed another hunter a mile away instead of hitting the deer he was aiming at.

We don't read novels to improve ourselves as far as being able to better balance a budget or something like that. We read them to enrich our lives. Good English teachers instill a love of reading, but also an ability to look at a work critically, analyze it, and get something out of it. That skill can be adapted once you're out of school to a busload of other ways, including something actually productive.

Kids learn when they're engaged with the material. When they find it interesting. Do you really think learning about "insulation" or "invasive plants" is going to engage any kid to actually enjoy reading? Ok, maybe it was "Killer Plant From Outer Space" or something, but I don't think that's the definition of "invasive" that they're using there.

We're having enough trouble getting kids to read, and enjoy reading, as it is. Textbooks are already non-fictional anyway. Do you really want to make it harder to get kids reading? Because I guarantee you, the best way to do that is to read about insulation.

This is yet more asinine federal government interference in what should be a state issue. States should be running their own education system. When the federal government gets involved, you get bullshit like this.

A case can be made for which literature should be read in school.

But there's gotta be something in there.

Revisiting "Benevolent Sexism"

Some of you may remember my post last year about benevolent sexism (called "The Post in Which I Admit I'm a Sexist Pig") and how stupid the whole idea of it is.

For those of you who didn't catch it (and who are too lazy to go to the link, and what do I pay you for anyway if you don't go to my links? Oh, I don't pay you...never mind), "benevolent sexism" is basically gentlemanly behaviour. Doing nice things for a woman, like opening a door, helping her with a heavy bag, that sort of thing. You're doing it out of the goodness of your heart, but you're still a HEARTLESS SCUMBAG!

Ahem. Sorry. My inner-feminist-idiot reared its ugly head there for a moment. All better now.

Yes, even if you are doing nice things, you are still demeaning the woman by helping her.

Why am I revisiting this subject? Because there's an interesting new post on the topic that I'd like to highlight.

Charles Murray, of the American Enterprise Institute, has highlighted a new study that shows that "benevolent sexism" does tend to make both parties happy. Yes, both the man and the woman.

He quotes from the abstract, which I shall also do now (though his quote is more extensive):

"The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence."

So let me get this straight. It makes the man happy when he does something for the woman. It makes the woman happy when she has something done for her.

So it's dangerous? Something that is beneficial to both sides of the equation is dangerous and must be stamped out?

I don't know about you, but I think the world needs a few doses of injected happiness (no, not that kind of injected happiness) amid all the doom and gloom out there.

That shouldn't surprise us, though. If you see this kind of behaviour as threatening, then making it more agreeable is just going to make it even more threatening to your status quo.

Charles' conclusion is beautiful:

"When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy? Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?"

Go read the post for the comments as well. Some very good ones in there.

It's "studies" like this that just boggle my mind.

A Mind-Boggling Mother-in-Law Question

Cannot emphasize enough that this is not the trio addressed in this article.
Thanks to Leefur on Flickr, under Creative Commons license

I was reading the Instapundit blog on lunch yesterday, as I am wont to do, and came across this gem.

A woman writes in to Elle magazine's "Ask E. Jean" column (or maybe it's an online-only column; I'm not sure) with this question (paraphrased):

My husband of 14 years, who is now 39 years old, is off boinking my mother when he goes on business trips close to where she lives. Strangely, I'm not upset by this. Should I be?

Ok, there is a lot more detail if you go to the page itself (and it's worth going just for the many comments going back and forth on this issue). But that's the gist of it. Husband boinks Mom, Wife not unhappy. Society tells her she should be, but she's not. Is there something wrong with her?

The question's bad enough, but the answer is even worse. Is Elle considered a feminist magazine? I don't really know. But if this is what it's peddling, well, let's just say that I'm not surprised society is as damaged as it is.

E. Jean says this:

"For 20 years, the world’s most attractive idiots, unrequited lovers, and chafing milksops (including myself) have babbled in this column about “unconditional love.” You are—astoundingly—the first to live it."

Of course, she goes on to tell the woman that if it bothers her, she should ask her husband to stop (the wife claims that he's said if she wants him to, he will stop the affair, as if we haven't heard that before). But as long as it doesn't bother her, she's the ideal we should all be shooting for! She's glorious! She's something we should all aspire to!

Excuse me while I go hack up a lung.

Is she serious with this advice? It just boggles my mind.

The comments section is a war between those who see this as sick and those who are of the "it's not hurting you, so don't judge her!" mindset. I think I fall into the former category for the most part.

Affairs are betrayals to the spouse who was cheated on. When the person involved is your mother, that's a double betrayal, because that's your mother not respecting you or your boundaries. Say what you want about whether or not "open relationships" are also killing the family unit, but at least those are consensual. Evidently the wife didn't know about this until just recently.

That's betrayal! I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. Whether she wants to feel bad about it is her own thing, of course. Though she should look at why she doesn't feel bad about it, and not be asking for advice on whether she "should" feel bad.

Would she feel bad if it was any woman other than her mother?

My beef is less with her (we all deal with things in our own way, and while I think she needs to examine her feelings and perhaps get help if she's having trouble doing that, that's something she has to do) and more with E. Jean's answer.

This kind of situation is not something to aspire to. We should not be working towards feeling nothing when our spouses betray us, whether it's with another family member or somebody else. "Unconditional love" does not mean "doormat." It means that you love them no matter what, but that doesn't mean you put up with anything they do.

Is your husband beating you? Or cheating on you? Or whatever? You can still love them even as you get away from them because they are betraying your trust, or making you unsafe and causing you pain, or whatever. Loving them does not mean you don't remove yourself from the situation. You can forgive them for what they do, but that doesn't mean you stick around and let them do it again.

To me, that's what "unconditional love" means. The emotion is there, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be a realist.

If the woman who wrote the letter wants to put up with it, that's her decision to make, as unfortunate as that is. Shame on her mother and the husband for putting her in that position, though.

But it's the "everything is relative" and "there are no right or wrong answers" mindset that is why this society is going down the toilet.

Some things are just wrong. If you want to accept the wrongness, that's fine. But you shouldn't be forcing that opinion on everybody else. And by bringing your kids up to feel the same way, you ultimately are forcing that opinion on everybody else. Because if more and more people do that, society will crumble into an "every person for themselves" monstrosity. It may take a generation or two (though some would say we're already getting there), but it will happen.

If you truly believe there are no right or wrong answers, are you also saying that morals don't exist?

If so, that's truly sad.

For you women out there, do Elle and similar magazines reflect *any* of your viewpoints?

Creatively Battling African Stereotypes - Radi-Aid

I love it when people come up with some creative way to make their point.

What's your main image of Africa? If you're like a lot of people who don't really think about it much, you probably think of starving children living in very poor communities with grass huts and bad water.

Looks pretty civilized to me! Nice mix of traditional and new

And while there are certainly areas in Africa that still need help, many of which have a major problem with corruption that hinders getting the aid that's needed, there are a lot of "civilized" areas in Africa too. Much like the American stereotype of Canadians living in igloos, believe it or not things like cell phones and the Internet do actually exist there too!

So when a stereotype get mocked (even a supposedly beneficial one like this), I have to applaud.

According to Orange News, there's a new viral video going out online that has Africans donating radiators to help Norwegians fight the cold weather.

The video for Radi-Aid (which is a parody of the 1985 song We Are the World) "was the idea of a Norwegian group aiming to challenge stereotypes about Africa."

In the video, South African rapper Breezy Vee, "urges Africans to donate their old radiators to help Norwegians survive the winter." Because, you know, frostbite can kill and how many Norwegians will freeze to death?

I love this from the Radi-Aid web site:

"Imagine if every person in Africa saw the “Africa for Norway”-video, and this was the only information they ever got about Norway. What would they think about Norway?"

They're probably think it was above the Arctic Circle, but why should westerners be alone in having weird geographic knowledge?

The "About Radi-Aid" section of the site goes on to more serious topics, though, and it's something I can respect.

"If we say Africa, what do you think about? Hunger, poverty, crime or AIDS? No wonder, because in fundraising campaigns and media that’s mainly what you hear about.

The pictures we usually see in fundraisers are of poor African children. Hunger and poverty is ugly, and it calls for action. But while these images can engage people in the short term, we are concerned that many people simply give up because it seems like nothing is getting better. Africa should not just be something that people either give to, or give up on."

Kudos to this organization for coming up with a fun way to point out that nobody should have to suffer under stereotypes. True aid and reform can't come to Africans who need it if the world has given up on it because of these stereotypes.

Even better is this, also from the same page:

"Aid is just one part of a bigger picture; we must have cooperation and investments, and change other structures that hold back development in poorer countries. Aid is not the only answer."

Check out Travel News Namibia  for this success story

Too many people forget that, I think. Aid is a band-aid if the structural problems aren't addressed. Investment in the countries, organizations that go over there to help them learn how to help themselves, things like that are what will make the continent prosper.

There has been much success there and we just don't see it when we are bombarded with images of starving children. How about some stories about the successes to show us that we are making a difference.

Don't ignore the problems. But don't focus on them at the expense of everything else, either.

Neither method will help in the long run.

Here's the hilarious video:

The Consequences of Being Stupid on the Internet

In the olden days, if you did something disrespectful or stupid, you would only really hear about it if somebody saw you. If somebody did see you, your reputation in the village may get a bit tarnished, but perhaps you could appear in front of the Village Council, make amends somehow, and go on your way? People might look at you funny for a while. But over time, if you behaved yourself, your offense may have been forgotten.

That is, unless you created a leaflet with a pencil drawing of you doing the stupid thing, hand-drawn about 5000 times, posted it to the notice board on the village green and dropped it off at every house in every village for miles around.

Even then, nobody in, say, Moscow would have any idea what you did if you happened to go there.

Now? Being stupid can place a permanent stain on your reputation, cost you your job, and maybe even prevent you from getting more jobs unless you do a massive, public mea culpa.

Yes, we have this thing called social media now. There seems to be a virus running rampant throughout social media, though, because it seems to infect millions of people and make them broadcast their stupidity for all the world to see.

If you were on the Internet at all this last week, you've seen the saga of two non-profit organization workers who have killed their careers. Lindsey Stone and Jamie Schuh were on a company-sponsored trip to Washington D.C. As part of their trip, they decided to take in some of the sights, including Arlington National Cemetery. To be specific, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. It's very nice that they were patriotic enough to go pay their respects to the fallen like that.

Except that's not what they did.

For those who don't click on the link (and why do I provide them if you're not going to click on them???), here's what they did, with Lindsey in front of the camera and Jamie behind it.

Real cool, eh? Even more stupidly, Lindsey posted it on her Facebook page.

And it went viral. Scathing criticism came from all over the web at their blatant disrespect to our fallen warriors. Lindsey was stunned that it caused this much controversy. She said it was just part of her and her friend being their typical douchebag selves, "challenging authority in general." They took a picture of her smoking in front of no-smoking sign, for heaven's sake! This is the same thing, right? It was all in good fun.

We're cool, right?

No, we're not cool.

Criticism continued to pour in, until the organization they worked for, LIFE (Living Independently Forever) eventually terminated them (or asked for their resignation, it's unclear which, but they have basically lost their jobs).

What is it about people and social media? People are wont to post their most stupid moments for all to see. Called in sick to work? You probably shouldn't be posting that picture of you at the Cardinals game the same night, or you down at the beach sunbathing.

What we used to keep hidden, we now showcase to everybody. Even if you keep your Facebook profile private, a picture is inevitably going to get out if you're being an idiot. Remember the jerk who made a video of himself yelling at the girl at Chick-Fil-A a few months ago? He was yelling at her for the company's contributions to anti-gay organizations. Whether you agree or disagree with Chick-Fil-A's owners, what does it say about you that you take it out on a minimum-wage worker at the drive-through window?

It says you're an asshole. And then when you post it online, you tell everybody in the world that you're an asshole.

When it gets out who you are and where you work, the company you work for is not going to want to be associated with you. Unless you're unionized (don't get me started on that), the company has every right to let you go for bringing their name down into the mud with you.

For those of you crying "free speech!" very loudly, all that says is that the government can't lock you up for speaking. The First Amendment does not protect you from other consequences of your actions.

On the other hand, it is a fair question to ask about whether or not a lot of people over-react to stuff like this. When videos and pictures go viral, there's almost a pack mentality where everybody gangs up on the offender, hounding them off the Net and sometimes (as in this case) out of a job. Where do you draw the line there? Personally, I do think that having fun at the expense of the war dead (not just soldiers, but *dead* soldiers) is over the line.

It's also an unfortunate fact of life that this stuff tends to fly out of control. Why spark it to begin with? Especially when you are being an idiot? Whether or not people are right to go overboard, it happens. Why risk it?

So what is it? What is it about social media that draws out our inner idiot? Or do we all have inner idiots and social media just makes it easier to show them to everybody else? I guess the two ladies would have taken that picture even if they didn't have a place to showcase it. Maybe pass it around to all of their friends.

Or would they?

Is there an innate need for attention that brings this out? A kind of "look at me!" mentality that social media feeds off of?

Is it a virus? And if so, is there a cure?

I don't know. Personally, I think it's yet another sad reflection on society.

Both issues mentioned above are, actually.

Failure as a Driving Force

There is something that's universal. It happens to everybody, be it kids trying to walk for the first time to somebody running for President, and everything in between (and even beyond).

Yes, we all fail. In fact, we fail a lot. Life is full of little failures when we try and do something.

Some people let failure paralyze them. Sometimes it's not even failure, but the fear of failure that keeps us from moving forward. We come up with some brilliant idea that we want to try, but then we don't put it into action because we're afraid it might not succeed. Maybe it isn't as brilliant as we thought it was. Or maybe we just don't have the skill or expertise to pull it off.

When we think of failure, we often think of these big things. We don't realize that there are many days that are full of little failures. You tried to fix the squeaky hinge on the door but it was beyond your capability and you had to ask for help. You tried to fix the clogged drain. Maybe you tried to figure out on your own how to hide columns on an Excel spreadsheet but then finally had to ask somebody.

We all do it. Failure is a part of our lives.

Wow, that was depressing. Isn't this supposed to be an inspirational post?

Yes it is.

The thing is, failure can be, and often is, a driving force in our lives, forcing us to improve our minds, our bodies, or even just our everyday life skills.

Had to ask about hiding columns on your spreadsheet? Maybe learning that taught you how to figure out other things in Excel without help. Through failure, you learn things about yourself, what you can and can't do, and maybe what you can teach yourself or have others teach you how to do. Maybe that failure inspires you to learn more about the subject so you don't have to ask for help again.

The best failures inspire us to do better, to be better. They open up new avenues to explore, new thought processes to implement. They make us better people.

A couple of weeks ago, I tweeted and Facebooked (wow, that's become a verb now?) a quote from a great post on the Inkpunks blog by Andrew Romine, called "Failure: You're Doing it Right." The quote was this:

"I throw myself at failure and hope I miss."

I think that's a wonderful quote, because it acknowledges that failure is always a possibility. But it's not something to be frightened of.

The entire post is well-worth reading.

Andrew lists three things to keep in mind when you find that the fear of failure is keeping you paralyzed. One of those is that failure can actually be a good way to discover your strengths.

"Sometimes failing at something is the only way to discover what you’re really good at. This is a less intuitive (and perhaps less pleasant) aspect of failure, but still a very important one. You have to be willing to put in long hours in any career or craft to get good at it. In those hundreds or thousands of hours of writing, drawing, puppetry, or even accounting, you’ll find your strengths and weaknesses. You’ll discover where your passion really lies."

I found this post really inspiring.

I love to write, but I have found myself falling into lazy funks that have kept me from actually producing anything. This blog went dormant for three months, and for weeks at a time even before that. I still haven't produced more than one story that I've actually submitted to a magazine for publication.

A big part of that is fear of failure. There's also the "why would anybody care what I think about something" feeling too, but it's more than that. It's the "why keep doing something that nobody's ever going to read?" trap as well.

That kind of thinking is poisonous, and while it has held me back from doing things, it hasn't held me back from the dream of doing them. I still feel inspired when I talk to writers such as Sandra Wickham (a writer and contributor to the Inkpunks blog and also one of my favourite Twitter follows who I had the pleasure of talking to again at V-Con this year) or other writers who I follow on Twitter or read their blogs.

When I came out of V-Con this year, I truly did feel inspired by all of the author and publisher panels that I attended, and the wonderful conversation I had with Connie Willis (an excellent SF author who was the guest of honour).

But then I got home and that same old fear hit.

It's something I'm really working hard to get over, and I think re-starting this blog and keeping it going as I have this month is a good start.

Posts like Andrew's help too.

I encourage you to check out the post because, while it's mainly about writing, it can be inspiring for anybody who finds themselves paralyzed by that same failure fear, even if it's not writing-related.

And check out the rest of the Inkpunks blog too if you're a writer. There's some good stuff there.

News of the Weird - Court Orders Woman to Wear "Idiot" Sign

Have you ever been driving and seen something in front of you that you just had to avoid? Not because it was something that, if you ran it down, you might get 15 to Life (or maybe just bad Karma), but something that was just annoying and keeping you from getting where you wanted to be?

Maybe a herd of ducks waddling across the street?

How about a school bus stopped for the kids?

That's what annoyed one Cleveland, Ohio woman to no end. Why should she have to stop and delay her trip to the local pub (ok, I don't really know where she was going, but still) just because a bunch of grimy rugrats are trying to get off or on a school bus?

According to Canoe News, she decided to do something about it. When the bus stopped and that little "Stop" sign flashed out that keeps traffic in both directions from driving by and possibly having a kid as a hood ornament, she took things into her own hands and drove up on the sidewalk to avoid the whole situation.

But she did it one too many times and the bus driver and cops were ready for her one day. As soon as she pulled the same stunt, cop sirens wailed and she was quickly picked up.

In addition to the standard "suspended license and fine" punishment, the judge also came up with something else for her to do:

"The judge also ordered Hardin to stand on a street near where the offence took place for an hour a day next Tuesday and Wednesday wearing a sign that reads: Only an idiot drives on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus."

Creative thinking, Your Honour!

Does this make some grand statement about society, and about how impatient we all are?

Or is this just a stupid woman?

You decide.

Also, I'd love to hear about things you've done on the road when something is annoying you. Nothing illegal, as I don't want you to out yourself. But anything else is fair game.

Chime in!

Incidentally, if you want to see the woman in action, go to the Canoe story I linked to. There is video of exactly what she did.

Free Speech Outrage of the Day

Thanks to To Hold Nothing

Want to show that you're an asshole? Try burning a poppy on Remembrance Day (Veteran's Day for you Americans, where I don't think the poppy is the same type of symbol as it is in the British Commonwealth countries).

Want to show that not only are you an asshole, but you're a despicable human being? Take a picture of it and blast out there onto social media.

Want to become a sympathetic subject of the constant battle for free speech in civilized and free countries?

Do it in the UK.

According to the Telegraph, a 19-year-old man from Aylesham was arrested not for burning a poppy on Remembrance Day (evidently that's cool), but for posting it on Facebook. It's not even clear he burned the poppy to begin with.

The UK does not have the First Amendment, but you would think in any free society people would have the ability to say whatever they want as long as it wasn't a threat to somebody.

You would be wrong.

The man was arrested under the "Malicious Communications Act".

According to the Guardian:

"According to the website of the CPS, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1, "deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient".

The CPS website states: "The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings.""

This law is offensive, and is akin to "hate speech" laws that are becoming more prevalent in North America as well. We haven't reached this point yet, but it's almost certain we will if we continue down that path, mainly because the definition of "hate speech" will start getting defined more and more broadly until it's meaningless. Anti-black/gay/Christian/women/etc statements are one thing (and I don't agree with them being against the law either, though they do demonstrate that the person making such statements is a boor who should never be listened to by anybody). But burning poppies? Where do you draw the line? (I seem to be asking that question a lot lately)

Yes, burning a poppy is obnoxious, and doing it on Remembrance Day is offensive. But what gives you the right to live a life free of offense? I find lots of things offensive. I don't think there should be a law against them, though.

Thankfully, the outrage about this online is palpable. Not that the UK government will listen, but at least people aren't lying down for this. These stupid arrests will continue to live on, and the UK will increasingly become a police state where you can't do anything without getting government approval first.

Ok, I exaggerate, but that seems to be the slope they're on.

Thanks to the Telegraph

The UK has a number of laws of similar stupidity, ones that I am truly afraid will be making their way over here at some point. Wonderful actor Rowan Atkinson recently spoke out about another one that appears to be intended to keep people from feeling insulted.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986 is as follows (thanks to the Digital Journal article I linked to above):

"As it currently stands, Section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 reads:

A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

So insulting somebody is a crime. Outrageous.

Atkinson was quite eloquent in his statement:

"The clear problem with the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism is easily construed as insult. Ridicule is easily construed as insult. Sarcasm, unfavourable comparison, merely stating an alternative point of view can be interpreted as insult."

Atkinson spoke as part of the launch of Reform Section 5, a group that is advocating changing the law to remove insults from it. It's supported by a number of officials and public figures, including Stephen Fry.

Personally, I don't think that goes far enough, as I think the entire law should be scrapped, not "reformed." Threats should be covered separately, as anybody who issues a threat, be it written, verbal, or smoke signals, should be punished. They don't need a speech law about it.

Government and laws should not be there to keep people from being offended. People who feel that way actually offend me.

So should they be arrested? Or is one person's offense fine while another's is actionable?

Another "Duh" Study - People Who Live Near Bars Drink More

Hard to believe I've been back blogging for two weeks and haven't done a "your tax dollars at work" post about some lame study!

So here you go, and this one isn't even from The Daily Mail in the UK, either.

According to CBS Atlanta, a study has shown that those who live near bars are more likely to drink more.

Was this really something people doubted? Yes, it doesn't apply to everybody. We have a really nice bar right down the street that I've been to a few times. I do enjoy it there. But it certainly hasn't caused me to drink more.

But generally? And speaking of people being "more likely" to drink more?

I don't know how anybody could question this, and that's even before this silly study.

It's like one of the commenters on the post said: it's a matter of convenience along with other things. If you live near a movie theater, you're more likely to go to movies. We live right down the street from one. For us, movies come in two different types (three if you count ones that we have no interest in): those we're willing to travel to see, and those that we'll go see if they happen to be within walking distance.

We didn't go to many movies at all when more effort was required.

It's the same with bars and drinking. When you can just stumble home after a night drinking, you're more likely to indulge yourself, aren't you? I would think so.

The study was done by a group of Finnish researchers, so I wonder where they got the funding for it. If it was private, then I think somebody wasted their money. And if it was public?

Well, that's par for the course, isn't it?

One day, there will be a study on why people believe the sky is blue, or why people like Justin Bieber (ok, that may be a useful study to determine insanity rates).

What do you think? Do you find bar proximity affecting how much you drink?

(Thought it would be nice to post something light and frothy after this morning's much more serious post)

Depending on the Government

There have been a lot of misconceptions about the term "self-reliance," and how much the government gets involved in our lives. You've all heard the term "Nanny State," and many of you have agreed with me when I've decried it, be it the effect on lemonade stands, how we feed our children, bringing sweets to school, or even how we raise our kids to begin with.

Yesterday, I was reading Charles C.W. Cook's excellent National Review article, "Why I Despair", and something jumped out at me that I would like to address. Actually, my wife read it first and pointed this one out to me, but it jumped out even more after I read it myself.

So many in our society are rolling over and not only letting government take over their lives, but actively demanding it.

What have we become?

On page three of the article, Cooke says the following:

"In 2010, on the BBC’s Question Time — a British current-affairs show on which the guests trip over one other to display the appropriate degree of fealty to whichever orthodoxy is in the news that week whilst the audience tries to be as clever as one can be without doing any reading — the question of impending government spending cuts was raised. One audience member stood up and, waving her hands around, asked who would mow her elderly mother’s lawn if the government no longer did it. The audience clapped. The host looked serious. Not a single person on the panel said, “You!” Neither of the putatively Conservative guests even raised an eyebrow. A particularly oleaginous MP proceeded to tell her that it was a “good question.” I threw a coffee cup at my television."

I had to do a double-take, as I could not believe somebody could seriously ask that question, and nobody would call them on it.

When I was in high school, I mowed the lawns of both sets of grandparents. It would never even have occurred to us to wonder if we could somehow get the government to do it. When I went off to college, I still did it in the Summer and I think my Dad did it when I wasn't around. Somebody in the family did, anyway. If it had become an issue, we would have hired some local kid.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF LAWN-MOWING.

This is the mind-set we're dealing with, where everything is a government program, where we don't rely on ourselves to actually get anything done.

The idea that conservatives put forward of "self-reliance" has been misconstrued so badly, as sort of a "everyone must fend for themselves!" type mentality. That couldn't be further from the truth. When we say "self-reliance," it's things like this, that you should not be depending on the government for. Government should not be mowing your lawn. Government should not be shutting down kids' lemonade stands because the kids didn't "obtain a peddler’s license, a food license, and pay $50 per day for a temporary business permit."

Where do you draw the line? When you demand that government do everything for you, how can you say that you're living your life at all? It's not your life if you're not doing anything for it.

Privacy? Many liberals decry the invasive policies of the TSA and their airport security procedures. Of wire-tapping and demanding that cell-phone companies cooperate in anti-terrorist activities, to name two examples. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you're demanding that government should provide everything in your life, then you don't get to complain when they take that extra mile forward that you allowed them to take. You let them in the door.

It's like a home invasion in one sense. If you open the door for the robber and say "come on in," you don't get to demand that they only take the broken microwave that's sitting on the counter. The robber will also take that nice brand-spanking new TV you just bought.

This is an honest question to all of you out there: where DO you draw that line? How much government intrusion is too much?

Lawn mowing? Lemonade stands? Diet? Should there be a Department of Diet Control that you submit your grocery list to every week and they strike off the stuff that's bad for you? Where they come and inspect your home every week to make sure you're not hiding any candy or cookies, especially if you have two kids? Where they weigh all of your kids and take them away from you if they've become too big because you're obviously a bad parent?

I don't think any of you want that. I hope you don't.

So why do you want them running any other aspect of your life?

It just boggles my mind.

Why do you trust the government to make one choice for you but not another? The common perception is that all politicians are crooks, or greedy, or corrupt, or out for themselves, or whatever. Nobody likes a politician, and such has been the feeling for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Remember that old Mark Twain quote? "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

And you want these people making your life choices?

Up here in Canada (and I'm sure there are similar things in the States, or maybe they exist down there too), there is an excellent charitable organization called "Meals on Wheels." This charity delivers meals to seniors who have trouble making their own meals and who can't get out of the house and down to the store. They don't have anybody else to help provide for them, so this service is a godsend. In Calgary at least, they also serve a number of schools where kids are not having their nutritional needs met.

This is a charity, with volunteers and donations. It's not a government program. If it were a government program, it would be so fraught with waste, abuse and bureaucracy that it wouldn't be funny.

There used to be a time where we all looked out for each other. Society as a whole took care of its own. Families looked after their loved ones; churches looked out for their flocks. Charities took care of those who couldn't help themselves and had nobody else.

We have developed a society recently with a "me-first" mentality. These people not only don't look after their fellow human beings, but have instilled a "I don't need to do it because the government will" attitude as well.

It's all a vicious circle. When we demand government do everything for us, we figure that the government will help so we don't have to. Since nobody's actually helping anybody, the government steps in, blasting through that open door that this mentality has provided it.

How can we break this cycle?

I wish I knew. But if we don't, society will continue to deteriorate to the point where it's unsalvageable.

If it's not already there.

*Edit* Just came across this brilliant quote from an otherwise not-so-brilliant President Gerald Ford, which sums it up beautifully.

"A government big enough to give us anything is strong enough to take everything"

News of the Weird - Toilets and Soccer

I'll bet you didn't realize those two things could go together, did you?

Only in Japan?

Yes, according to Orange News, two Japanese companies have combined forces to create a toilet that can also be a goalkeeper.

What's that? Why would you want your toilet to also tend goal on your soccer team?

You must not have an imagination.

Why pay extra for a goalkeeper when you can just bring out the toilet from the locker room? It doesn't even have to move, so you don't need things like rollers or actual, you know, feet or anything. It will never get hurt.


Ok, maybe it can't actually catch the ball and toss it to its own player to get the next play started, but surely that can be worked around somehow.

Playing soccer is a tiring sport, and you have to keep hydrated. Since play never stops during each half, you need to really load up during halftime. Of course, you know where all that water goes, right? Yep, your goalkeeper can then help you there too.

It's a win-win!

Just don't try to use it during the game, because you may not like it if somebody tries to score while you're taking a leak. It calculates the trajectory of the kick with motion sensors and then shoots a ball out of its bowl to deflect the soccer ball away. Ouch if you're standing in front of it!

This is a concept that was a long-time coming, I think. Soon, who knows? Maybe an entire team full of toilets?

It just might work.

My favourite line from the story:

"Toilet maker Toto and sports lottery agent Toto pitched their collaboration as an environmentally friendly project."

Well, it certainly makes it so you can recycle your goalkeeper!

Check out the video of how it works here.