Several items have come across my desk in the past weeks. At first they did not seem at all related. Now, they are taking enough shape so that I can post on the subject. The latest is the recent Supreme Court of the United States decision knocking down the California law forbidding the sale of violent video games to children. The second, is the shocking degree to which young children are obese. The third is the directive to a choir director by a Catholic board of eduction that touching children in the course of teaching them how to sing is forbidden. This last action came from a complaint from a distraught parent whose child's posture was corrected by a gentle touch to the shoulder. The last item concerns new rules in organized soccer that would do away with scoring so that there would be no winners and no losers in the game. What brings all of these things together is the role that parents play in transmitting values to their children.
There is no doubt that parents play a significant role in the development of their children. That being said I have witnessed many children who grow up into responsible adults notwithstanding a horrendous home life. Life is funny that way. But what we do as parents can have a significant effect, both positive and negative, on our kids. But parenting poses problems.
For instance, those families that are blessed with monetary abundance have to balance indulgence against ever increasing demands for material things by the child. I can remember a time when the only present I got was for my birthday. Now it is not uncommon for children to get presents at every turn. Kid's rooms are a collection of junk that is mostly unused. There appears to be no sense of anticipation for kids. Say a word and here it it.
If there is such as thing as child hypochondria some parents I know have a giant case of it. The child is supposed to live in a sterile bubble that no harm can come to him or her. What will happen to that child when he or she faces a world where risk is an ordinary part of life?
There are winners and losers in life and where that's learned best of all is on the sports field. What's also learned is that there are those who are more gifted than others in sports. Adaptive kids will find a way around that. Sheltered kids may not.
And what about fat kids? What we know is that foods dense in calories are the most cheap. Try buying fresh vegetables and proteins on a modest income. That said, even those kids who come from more affluent homes are equally afflicted by obesity. One of the reasons is that two income parents rarely cook meals anymore. More prepared foods are purchased and brought into the home. These are usually dense in fat and salt--a sure prescription for obesity.
And what about violent video games? We were the kind of parents who never bought toy guns for our kids. However, they took from whatever was at hand and fashioned weapons while yelling "bang, bang, you're dead". Whether it's cowboys and indians or Canadians versus Nazis, all kids tend to play war games. It is only when a child has difficulty with seeing the difference between fantasy and reality that trouble may arise. As a child I saw repeated versions of the Road Runner where the Wily Fox comes to violent ends only to rise again from the ashes. I could easily distinguish between that kind of violence and hitting another kid on the head with a rock.
What all of these things have in common is that they require active parenting. I will readily admit that my son is a more active parent that I was. He is more part of his kid's life than I was. Sad but true. However, I believe that my son is a responsible adult who overcame whatever neglect I carried out when he was growing up. That being said, all of the items above require parents to be parents. Sometimes they require painful confrontations with kids where the easiest course of action is to turn away. A parent is both cheerleader, mentor and an unconditional font of love.
Happy Canada Day and the 4th
Bernie.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
On Senate Reform
Canada has been much divided on the need for a federal Senate. Long a resting place for party faithful, Senate reform has become a contentious issue.
Let’s look at the US Senate and the British House of Lords. The US constitution builds a carefully scripted separation of powers. Each player, be it the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Administration (President) have a part to play. Each may introduce legislation but must get the other player to cooperate if the legislation is to become law. It’s like a perpetually hung parliament. The British House of Lords stems back to a time when the commoners were not to be trusted to have a free reign when passing legislation. The Lords were th landed gentry and others of merit who were put there to take a “second sober look” at what might be an impetuous action on the part of the elected parliament. Most peers are now appointed for life and so the generation after generation of feeble players has now pretty much come to an end.
In Canada we established the Senate to have a second sober look at legislation from the Commons but without the landed gentry component. During the long Liberal years the Senate built up a Liberal majority that was just recently eroded by Senate appointments by the current Conservative government. Some of the duties of the Senate were, indeed, arcane. I can remember as a law student delivering petitions to the Senate to end marriages that were contracted in Quebec: only the Senate could grant a divorce to a Quebec couple. This made for a tidy legal practice for some Ottawa lawyers. What I do remember, though, is that the senate had the time and the patience to delve into matters that the Commons simply did not have the time to do. Much of the banking legislation and regulation can harken back to Senate committees. Much of this work was highly distinguished and persists to this day.
I cannot remember a time when appointments to the Senate were not based in political patronage. Having said that, it seems to me that Senators appointed, say, thirty years ago were more substantial than the sports and media figures that have recently graced the Red Chamber. Also, those recently appointed have had to acknowledge their faithfulness to the Conservative mantra. A Prime Minister that avowedly stood for Senate reform appointed them so that government bills could not be stalled in the upper chamber.
Until recently it appeared that Canadian voters liked the compromise that a hung parliament can bring. It seems a bit ingenuous (and evidence of the lack of basic political knowledge by many Canadians) that a majority of seats in the Commons should result in any kind of tyranny. The US system has a built in negotiation system that requires compromise. The Canadian system does not. Also, the growth of the parliamentary committee has, in part, replaced the work that was previously done by the Senate. However, these committees are now mired in politics that have rendered them mostly useless.
If Canada goes toward an elected senate, the most populous provinces will have most of the say. In the US, each state, regardless of size, has two senators. This was done so that each state would have exactly the same say as any other state, while the House of Representatives was exactly that: representative of the population of the constituency.
So what kind of senate does Canada really want? First we want elected representatives so that the political patronage can stop. Second, I am in favour of the US style of senate where each province (and possibly each Territory and Aboriginal People) could have equal representation. It is possible that the senate will have a majority of members that are of a different political stripe than that of the commons. This will lead to the US kind of compromise government.
Does Canada want any kind of senate? There is some comfort in the fact that there is an arm of parliament that gets a “second sober look”. There is some check and balance in the system. I believe that Canadians want some check on the tyranny of the majority (so called) that could arise if the Senate were abolished.
What do we get? We get a watered down version of nothing at all. Offering term limits to Senators does not fix any legislative or political problem.
Bernie.
Monday, 20 June 2011
Go, Rory, Go
When all is said and done, there is usually more said than done. I have been watching the canonization of the latest golf phenom, Rory McIlroy, as the new golem to which all who play or watch golf must now bow down. It's funning how things work: just when golf was in need of a massive transfusion of talent--and money draw--a new face of big money golf has risen from the ashes.
What is little known is just how much Tiger transformed the game of golf. Financially. When Tiger joined the tour only two touring PGA professionals made more thant $1million annually. By the time he left the tour for various reasons (marriage, sex rehab, health) there were over 30 PGA golf professionals making more than $1million annually. Tour revenues surged as more eyes watched Tiger's golf feats. Television revenues also spiked. There was more money for pros and there was more money for charities who benefit mightily from these golf tournaments. Tiger was the money driver of the pro circuit worldwide. No one, not even his wife's divorce attorney, can take that away from him. That he fell swiftly to the sins of the flesh is understandable. We created a god. And he had feet of clay.
And now for Rory. You couldn't make up a story better than his. From Northern Ireland where pitching was all too recently related to bombs. Where sectarian violence makes the Africa spring offensive look tame. Out of this came a young golfer with working class looks who can hit a golf ball with such grace that he is already being compared to the greatest in the game.
I do not mean to be cynical. Well, maybe I do. But golf needs Rory as much as Rory needs golf. I am almost certain that he will become associated with Nike and sell shaving blades though he looks too young to shave. In sports nothing succeeds like excess. Building a hero is a full time job for the flacks and tearing down a hero is also a full time job for the same people who built him up.
What can we learn from Tiger? Everything else aside, I witnessed an impossible 4 iron shot out of the sand at the Canadian open that flew straight to the cup. The putt that almost didn't and then did go in. Tiger gave as good as he got. However, Tiger was the product of a career that started on the Ed Sullivan show. Like Mozart, he was a child prodigy. Like Mozart he came to an untimely end with very few mourners. I have no doubt that Tiger, with the PGA now off his back, will retire to count his money. He's earned it. Tiger was, as most people are, a product of his times. He emerged when the rest of the field was fairly mediocre.
We may yet have a few matches between the new king and the old. One of their last meetings ended up in a loss by Tiger to Rory. A portence of things to come. Rory aside I can't think of another golfer with Tiger's creativity. However there is a new game in town. Golfers whose names Tiger had never heard of are now dominating the game. Most of the them are European--much to the chagrin of the US sports commentators. There is a lot less fanfare. A lot less characters such as John Daley--and a good thing too.
It will be interesting to see how Rory deals with his newfound fame--and wealth. While he already is a high profile golfer--a wunderking--he will have to deal, now, with wealth and exposure. The PGA anointed him yesterday. Today its payback time. There will now be demands on his time that will make playing golf look like a part time job. To his credit he seems to be taking to the new role well. He seems well grounded and while Tiger was always polite to the press (at least when it came to golf) he seemed personally remote. Rory seems "out there". But that's today. Let's see him when he is asked the 100th inane question. Let's see him deal with the paperazzi. Only time will tell.
All said, it's nice to see that a young man from working class Ireland prevail and almost lapped the field. The last "working class" champion was Arnie Palmer--and he didn't do too badly.
Bernie
What is little known is just how much Tiger transformed the game of golf. Financially. When Tiger joined the tour only two touring PGA professionals made more thant $1million annually. By the time he left the tour for various reasons (marriage, sex rehab, health) there were over 30 PGA golf professionals making more than $1million annually. Tour revenues surged as more eyes watched Tiger's golf feats. Television revenues also spiked. There was more money for pros and there was more money for charities who benefit mightily from these golf tournaments. Tiger was the money driver of the pro circuit worldwide. No one, not even his wife's divorce attorney, can take that away from him. That he fell swiftly to the sins of the flesh is understandable. We created a god. And he had feet of clay.
And now for Rory. You couldn't make up a story better than his. From Northern Ireland where pitching was all too recently related to bombs. Where sectarian violence makes the Africa spring offensive look tame. Out of this came a young golfer with working class looks who can hit a golf ball with such grace that he is already being compared to the greatest in the game.
I do not mean to be cynical. Well, maybe I do. But golf needs Rory as much as Rory needs golf. I am almost certain that he will become associated with Nike and sell shaving blades though he looks too young to shave. In sports nothing succeeds like excess. Building a hero is a full time job for the flacks and tearing down a hero is also a full time job for the same people who built him up.
What can we learn from Tiger? Everything else aside, I witnessed an impossible 4 iron shot out of the sand at the Canadian open that flew straight to the cup. The putt that almost didn't and then did go in. Tiger gave as good as he got. However, Tiger was the product of a career that started on the Ed Sullivan show. Like Mozart, he was a child prodigy. Like Mozart he came to an untimely end with very few mourners. I have no doubt that Tiger, with the PGA now off his back, will retire to count his money. He's earned it. Tiger was, as most people are, a product of his times. He emerged when the rest of the field was fairly mediocre.
We may yet have a few matches between the new king and the old. One of their last meetings ended up in a loss by Tiger to Rory. A portence of things to come. Rory aside I can't think of another golfer with Tiger's creativity. However there is a new game in town. Golfers whose names Tiger had never heard of are now dominating the game. Most of the them are European--much to the chagrin of the US sports commentators. There is a lot less fanfare. A lot less characters such as John Daley--and a good thing too.
It will be interesting to see how Rory deals with his newfound fame--and wealth. While he already is a high profile golfer--a wunderking--he will have to deal, now, with wealth and exposure. The PGA anointed him yesterday. Today its payback time. There will now be demands on his time that will make playing golf look like a part time job. To his credit he seems to be taking to the new role well. He seems well grounded and while Tiger was always polite to the press (at least when it came to golf) he seemed personally remote. Rory seems "out there". But that's today. Let's see him when he is asked the 100th inane question. Let's see him deal with the paperazzi. Only time will tell.
All said, it's nice to see that a young man from working class Ireland prevail and almost lapped the field. The last "working class" champion was Arnie Palmer--and he didn't do too badly.
Bernie
Friday, 17 June 2011
They're Rioting in Vancouver
I recently produced several posts on the subject of how little it takes to transform ordinary citizens into unreasoning masses of malevolence. Racism is a good example. Marginalizing minority groups is another. And then there was Vancouver. What is not surprising is that large crowds assembled in a restricted geographical space could be goaded into a riot. The fact is that the police were ill prepared for such an event--even when its eventuality was almost a forgone conclusion. This is not the first riot that was sparked by a sporting event and it will not be the last. But is there something that should be learned from it?
What is probably true is that there were some people who attended the outdoor assembly who were intent on causing trouble. The police's description of these persons as "anarchists" is a political diversion strategy. It's almost as if labelling people as "anarchists" somehow absolves the police from doing their duty. The police, plainly, were not prepared. Just as much as the hockey team was unprepared. At least the Sedin twins stood up and took the blame. They said they had, plainly, not played well enough. The Vancouver police should do the same. They will probably take the blame when it is assigned by yet another endless and costly inquiry.
What is chilling about these riots is less that they happened but what occurred after the riots started. It may be true that the riots were caused by a few yahoos. But, once started, seemly ordinary people were only too happy to join in. They joined into the destruction of properly and in the wholesale looting that followed. On one television report a seemly ordinary young women was caught clutching an expensive handbag that she had purloined from an expensive shop. When asked why she had done such a thing she replied that she wanted it. No thought that she was stealing. No thought that she was participating in a wholesale riot as a perpetrator. She wanted it.
Usually riots are caused because of pent up anger. This riot was inflamed by people who were having fun. There were no up-raised fists against business globalization. There were young people who were running through a fire in the street in some form of limbo contest. The turning over and burning of cars was another event of hilarity. Just kids having fun.
I always guard against being an old scold. Against saying that my generation would not do such a thing. However, my generation did equally stupid things. There is no statute of limitations against stupidity. However, I will say, from a vantage point of perspective, that the casual disregard for property rights is a thing that has occurred over the past 30 years. When did "tagging" become the legitimate express of the oppressed in the ghetto. Not so long ago we called it defacing property. Another thing. The overall propriety of society has taken a nosedive. It is no longer rude to be rude. We now take this as an expression of our individuality. Cheating on tests is epidemic. Plagiarism is now being considered as being too commonplace to warrant giving the student a "0" on a paper.
And then, what about society's indifference to violence. Historians say that this indifference started when the Vietnam was was brought into everyone's living room via television. However, this has evolved into an almost anaesthetic reaction to urban violence where hundreds if not thousands are killed in gang wars. Add to this the gratuitous violence of movies, games and world events and society starts to believe that violence is the norm, not the exception. So if anything goes, everything goes.
But, what to do about stemming this kind of violence. It is unclear that any judicial process is going to reform these perpetrators. Either they are bent on violence out of primal instinct or they are sufficiently anti social so as not to care much about the consequences. I have long observed that people rarely change. I am against the death penalty only because of the fallibility of the judicial system in that perfectly innocent people are somehow put to death. I am against retribution in sentencing because that advances vigilantly justice. But, what to do with these hooligans? I would want to make the sentence as unpleasant as current laws provide without going to public flogging or the stocks. My solution is that these persons should be put on a work program where they worked sufficiently long to repay at least some of the damage that they cause. But, you say, they can't work off a million dollar damage bill. Yes, they can. They can provide services to the community for which the community would otherwise pay. No, it would not take away jobs. There are many things that communities need that they can't fund in the present economy. Let property destroyers do the work. For years, if necessary, until they have, literally paid back their debt to society. Maybe the perpetrators will have a better appreciation for the value of property. A slap on the wrist serves no one.
Bernie.
What is probably true is that there were some people who attended the outdoor assembly who were intent on causing trouble. The police's description of these persons as "anarchists" is a political diversion strategy. It's almost as if labelling people as "anarchists" somehow absolves the police from doing their duty. The police, plainly, were not prepared. Just as much as the hockey team was unprepared. At least the Sedin twins stood up and took the blame. They said they had, plainly, not played well enough. The Vancouver police should do the same. They will probably take the blame when it is assigned by yet another endless and costly inquiry.
What is chilling about these riots is less that they happened but what occurred after the riots started. It may be true that the riots were caused by a few yahoos. But, once started, seemly ordinary people were only too happy to join in. They joined into the destruction of properly and in the wholesale looting that followed. On one television report a seemly ordinary young women was caught clutching an expensive handbag that she had purloined from an expensive shop. When asked why she had done such a thing she replied that she wanted it. No thought that she was stealing. No thought that she was participating in a wholesale riot as a perpetrator. She wanted it.
Usually riots are caused because of pent up anger. This riot was inflamed by people who were having fun. There were no up-raised fists against business globalization. There were young people who were running through a fire in the street in some form of limbo contest. The turning over and burning of cars was another event of hilarity. Just kids having fun.
I always guard against being an old scold. Against saying that my generation would not do such a thing. However, my generation did equally stupid things. There is no statute of limitations against stupidity. However, I will say, from a vantage point of perspective, that the casual disregard for property rights is a thing that has occurred over the past 30 years. When did "tagging" become the legitimate express of the oppressed in the ghetto. Not so long ago we called it defacing property. Another thing. The overall propriety of society has taken a nosedive. It is no longer rude to be rude. We now take this as an expression of our individuality. Cheating on tests is epidemic. Plagiarism is now being considered as being too commonplace to warrant giving the student a "0" on a paper.
And then, what about society's indifference to violence. Historians say that this indifference started when the Vietnam was was brought into everyone's living room via television. However, this has evolved into an almost anaesthetic reaction to urban violence where hundreds if not thousands are killed in gang wars. Add to this the gratuitous violence of movies, games and world events and society starts to believe that violence is the norm, not the exception. So if anything goes, everything goes.
But, what to do about stemming this kind of violence. It is unclear that any judicial process is going to reform these perpetrators. Either they are bent on violence out of primal instinct or they are sufficiently anti social so as not to care much about the consequences. I have long observed that people rarely change. I am against the death penalty only because of the fallibility of the judicial system in that perfectly innocent people are somehow put to death. I am against retribution in sentencing because that advances vigilantly justice. But, what to do with these hooligans? I would want to make the sentence as unpleasant as current laws provide without going to public flogging or the stocks. My solution is that these persons should be put on a work program where they worked sufficiently long to repay at least some of the damage that they cause. But, you say, they can't work off a million dollar damage bill. Yes, they can. They can provide services to the community for which the community would otherwise pay. No, it would not take away jobs. There are many things that communities need that they can't fund in the present economy. Let property destroyers do the work. For years, if necessary, until they have, literally paid back their debt to society. Maybe the perpetrators will have a better appreciation for the value of property. A slap on the wrist serves no one.
Bernie.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
On Legalizing Prostitution
I have long been an advocate of legalizing prostitution. My support of the oldest profession is based partly on public health (a legally licensed sex worker would undergo rigorous testing for sexually transmitted diseases) and partly in support of those who either can't find an acceptable partner or who choose to have impersonal sex for whatever reasons are important to them.
In Canada we have a curious legal system that states that the act itself is legal while almost everything associated with the act is illegal. While prostitution (that is the sex act) is legal, living off the avails of prostitution is illegal. While prostitution is legal soliciting prostitution is illegal. In our system the Johns can go to jail while the sex worker does not. We wink and nod at column upon column of ads in Craig's List that promote "escort services". A recent Ontario case involving the right to practice prostitution from your home struck down Canada's arcane prostitution laws on grounds that such a prohibition violated the Charter of Rights. That case was appealed and is now before the Ontario Court of Appeal. Whatever the decision the case is destined to go before the Supreme Court of Canada.
North American society is ambivalent on prostitution. While the religious right is avowedly against prostitution, the largest subscribers to TV sex channels is in the bible belt of the US. Religious Jewish young men in New York that are known users of prostitutes have an incidence of HIV-Aids that is significantly higher than those of the surrounding geographical area. One of the greatest increases in HIV-AIDS is in South Florida where seniors who can't find willing partners are patronizing prostitutes with devastating medical results. The state of Nevada that legalizes certain types of prostitution has the lowest incidence of HIV-AIDS in the US.
Many European countries have legalized prostitution in one form or another. The Netherlands is famous for its streets where prostitutes display their wares in storefront windows. Many southeast Asian countries are tourist sex destinations where the abuse of underage girl and boy prostitutes have reached epidemic proportions. While I am an advocate for legalized prostitutions I am clearly not an advocate for the sex slaves, the exploitation of children and the business hierarchy that includes pimps and business managers that leave sex workers impoverished.
What I am for is some clarity about what constitutes criminal behaviour. One Prime Minister Trudeau stated that government has no business in the bedrooms of its citizens. Canada has led the way in legalizing same sex marriage. It's now time to be realistic when it comes to prostitution. I say this knowing that the current Conservative government is not willing to leave well enough alone. It is intent on filling the jails with more criminals convicted of more legislated crimes. As if filling the jails is a solution. However, that is another subject for another post.
For those who believe that my stance on prostitution is extreme let's look at some other behaviour that is legal. Smoking, though it will shorten the lives of the smoker and those around him. Alcohol, though it will lead to countless dead on the roads. What about obesity, though it will cause serious medical problems that will have to be paid for by society in general. If one is concerned that "selling one's body" is somehow sacrosanct what about the model who sells her body or money so that it can be displayed on the cover of a magazine.
There has to be a point where private behaviour trumps government intervention. Where does the body politic have to step in and protect us from ourselves. Surely, smoking or obesity makes a better case for itself than does satisfaction of a primal sex urge. At some point the line in the sand regarding government intervention has to be drawn. Maybe its on prostitution.
Bernie.
In Canada we have a curious legal system that states that the act itself is legal while almost everything associated with the act is illegal. While prostitution (that is the sex act) is legal, living off the avails of prostitution is illegal. While prostitution is legal soliciting prostitution is illegal. In our system the Johns can go to jail while the sex worker does not. We wink and nod at column upon column of ads in Craig's List that promote "escort services". A recent Ontario case involving the right to practice prostitution from your home struck down Canada's arcane prostitution laws on grounds that such a prohibition violated the Charter of Rights. That case was appealed and is now before the Ontario Court of Appeal. Whatever the decision the case is destined to go before the Supreme Court of Canada.
North American society is ambivalent on prostitution. While the religious right is avowedly against prostitution, the largest subscribers to TV sex channels is in the bible belt of the US. Religious Jewish young men in New York that are known users of prostitutes have an incidence of HIV-Aids that is significantly higher than those of the surrounding geographical area. One of the greatest increases in HIV-AIDS is in South Florida where seniors who can't find willing partners are patronizing prostitutes with devastating medical results. The state of Nevada that legalizes certain types of prostitution has the lowest incidence of HIV-AIDS in the US.
Many European countries have legalized prostitution in one form or another. The Netherlands is famous for its streets where prostitutes display their wares in storefront windows. Many southeast Asian countries are tourist sex destinations where the abuse of underage girl and boy prostitutes have reached epidemic proportions. While I am an advocate for legalized prostitutions I am clearly not an advocate for the sex slaves, the exploitation of children and the business hierarchy that includes pimps and business managers that leave sex workers impoverished.
What I am for is some clarity about what constitutes criminal behaviour. One Prime Minister Trudeau stated that government has no business in the bedrooms of its citizens. Canada has led the way in legalizing same sex marriage. It's now time to be realistic when it comes to prostitution. I say this knowing that the current Conservative government is not willing to leave well enough alone. It is intent on filling the jails with more criminals convicted of more legislated crimes. As if filling the jails is a solution. However, that is another subject for another post.
For those who believe that my stance on prostitution is extreme let's look at some other behaviour that is legal. Smoking, though it will shorten the lives of the smoker and those around him. Alcohol, though it will lead to countless dead on the roads. What about obesity, though it will cause serious medical problems that will have to be paid for by society in general. If one is concerned that "selling one's body" is somehow sacrosanct what about the model who sells her body or money so that it can be displayed on the cover of a magazine.
There has to be a point where private behaviour trumps government intervention. Where does the body politic have to step in and protect us from ourselves. Surely, smoking or obesity makes a better case for itself than does satisfaction of a primal sex urge. At some point the line in the sand regarding government intervention has to be drawn. Maybe its on prostitution.
Bernie.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
On The Art of Engineering
I am one of the least mechanical skilled of human beings. Fitting a key in a lock is about what I can do without expert help. My skills go to other things. However, my admiration for those who have mechanical skills knows no bounds. I marvel at the engineering skills of Michelangelo. Much of the world's high tech products are the result of refined and brilliant engineering. A brilliant idea and the product that comes from it is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. It's the engineers who do the perspiration thing. They make it work. Sometimes with as much elegance as befits the inventor.
Sir James Dyson, the British billionaire who made his money on vacuum cleaners is a case in point. Dyson is an inventor/engineer whose approach to marketing is, to say the least, unorthodox. Most companies survey the marketplace to measure demand before building a new product. Dyson does the reverse: he builds the product and depends on the consumer's intelligence to buy it. The approach has succeeded. Brilliantly.
But I digress. Dyson's point is that most advanced economies produce more business graduates than they do engineering graduates. In Britain alone there is an engineering deficit of about 25,000 jobs. Most emerging economies such as India, Brazil and China do the reverse. They promote engineering as a well paid and honoured profession. Singapore has it about right--it graduates just enough engineers to sustain its manufacturing economy.
Engineering leads to manufacturing jobs. In advanced economies it leads to a demand for workers who are highly educated and who, themselves, may have technical skills. In many advanced economies the education system is not only producing an engineering deficit but is also failing to produce educated students to fill high paying jobs. Those jobs go abroad not because labour is cheaper but because the labour force is better educated elsewhere. In Canada and the US and to some extent in Britain many students wind up in low paying service jobs not because higher paying jobs were exported but because they are ill educated and can't fill the higher paid jobs. With the financial crunch in the US hitting education hard, the trend to functional illiteracy and bad math skills will only make matters worse.
In Canada, Britain and the US many engineering students are of foreign extraction--either as recent immigrants or students from other countries. They have much to teach us. We should make it easier, not harder, for those students to stay on and work in the countries that gave them their education. As to domestic students of foreign extraction we should be looking to their family values where excellence is stressed and rewarded. As a first generation Canadian, failure at school was not an option. My parents had sacrificed their generation so that my generation could get ahead and I was not about to disappoint them.
The argument often heard is that we are in a "post industrial" economy. This is meant to mean that we are somehow ahead of those economies that are still "mired" in manufacture. But the emerging economies are beating the tar out of the more mature "post industrial" economies. Take China or Brazil. Their GDP growth are outperforms that of the most "post industrial" countries. In "post industrial" countries the industry of the economy is based largely on service rather than manufactured goods. Witness the banking industry that makes money on money. But, in the end, these service industries depend on someone making something. We cannot service ourselves into overall wealth.
The Western economies that have migrated to a "post industrial" economy have generally done badly. They can't repatriate jobs that were lost to China and India and they can't seem to educate their younger population to do something technically useful. Those who make money on money get richer and those who can't do that work at MacDonald serving hamburgers.
We suffer short sighted politicians who will not or cannot take the long view. President Kennedy's answer to Sputnik was to reform the education system in the US. We have no such leadership now in most Western countries. Government money is spent on war when it should be spent at home. We are educating a few at the top while the bottom lies mired largely in functional ignorance. We need to energize a whole generation to aspire to better things.
So, we do need more engineers. But before we get there we have to have an honest talk with each other. Something that the politicians are wont to do. We need to talk about what investment we are going to make in the future generations so that they can become useful citizens in an ever more complex world. Then, we'll get engineers.
Sir James Dyson, the British billionaire who made his money on vacuum cleaners is a case in point. Dyson is an inventor/engineer whose approach to marketing is, to say the least, unorthodox. Most companies survey the marketplace to measure demand before building a new product. Dyson does the reverse: he builds the product and depends on the consumer's intelligence to buy it. The approach has succeeded. Brilliantly.
But I digress. Dyson's point is that most advanced economies produce more business graduates than they do engineering graduates. In Britain alone there is an engineering deficit of about 25,000 jobs. Most emerging economies such as India, Brazil and China do the reverse. They promote engineering as a well paid and honoured profession. Singapore has it about right--it graduates just enough engineers to sustain its manufacturing economy.
Engineering leads to manufacturing jobs. In advanced economies it leads to a demand for workers who are highly educated and who, themselves, may have technical skills. In many advanced economies the education system is not only producing an engineering deficit but is also failing to produce educated students to fill high paying jobs. Those jobs go abroad not because labour is cheaper but because the labour force is better educated elsewhere. In Canada and the US and to some extent in Britain many students wind up in low paying service jobs not because higher paying jobs were exported but because they are ill educated and can't fill the higher paid jobs. With the financial crunch in the US hitting education hard, the trend to functional illiteracy and bad math skills will only make matters worse.
In Canada, Britain and the US many engineering students are of foreign extraction--either as recent immigrants or students from other countries. They have much to teach us. We should make it easier, not harder, for those students to stay on and work in the countries that gave them their education. As to domestic students of foreign extraction we should be looking to their family values where excellence is stressed and rewarded. As a first generation Canadian, failure at school was not an option. My parents had sacrificed their generation so that my generation could get ahead and I was not about to disappoint them.
The argument often heard is that we are in a "post industrial" economy. This is meant to mean that we are somehow ahead of those economies that are still "mired" in manufacture. But the emerging economies are beating the tar out of the more mature "post industrial" economies. Take China or Brazil. Their GDP growth are outperforms that of the most "post industrial" countries. In "post industrial" countries the industry of the economy is based largely on service rather than manufactured goods. Witness the banking industry that makes money on money. But, in the end, these service industries depend on someone making something. We cannot service ourselves into overall wealth.
The Western economies that have migrated to a "post industrial" economy have generally done badly. They can't repatriate jobs that were lost to China and India and they can't seem to educate their younger population to do something technically useful. Those who make money on money get richer and those who can't do that work at MacDonald serving hamburgers.
We suffer short sighted politicians who will not or cannot take the long view. President Kennedy's answer to Sputnik was to reform the education system in the US. We have no such leadership now in most Western countries. Government money is spent on war when it should be spent at home. We are educating a few at the top while the bottom lies mired largely in functional ignorance. We need to energize a whole generation to aspire to better things.
So, we do need more engineers. But before we get there we have to have an honest talk with each other. Something that the politicians are wont to do. We need to talk about what investment we are going to make in the future generations so that they can become useful citizens in an ever more complex world. Then, we'll get engineers.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
On Being Married Fifty Years
With a week or so my wife and I will have been married fifty years. That's half a century. And that got me thinking.
I will not resort to all the old, tired jokes about getting older or Viagra. What surprises me is that the institution of marriage is here at all. When we got married the social norm was not to "live together" for a period in a "tryout" marriage. Dating, courting and marriage were quite straightforward. For the most part it was expected that most marriages would be largely monogamous, that the wife would give up her career to become a stay at home mom and that most families could live quite well on one income.
I'm not going to say that women got smarter. I will put today's women up against anyone from my generation. I will say that women got liberated. I have seen, from the vantage point of my generation, a general retreat from responsibility by men. Men today are less likely to get an university education, are more likely to drop out of school and appear to be focused on the good, unattached, life in a bar. Women, on the other hand have learned that money is power. This has had a profound effect on marriage. In many marriages women out-earn their partners and call most of the shots. Including the decision of staying together. Where women were more economically dependent on their spouses the decision to split usually meant a catastrophic decrease in standard of living by the wife. That's not to say that there were not as many loveless marriages in my generation. Now, women have the education and the economic clout to go their own way.
Just look at the social culture portrayed by mass media. Men are shown as bumbling louts whereas women are generally shown as the stronger partner. Even in commercials, men characters are shown as bumbling when compared to their spouses. Look at the Cialis add. It's usually the woman who makes the advances. Look at the Viagra add. Men look particularly stupid and dance down the street after having had sex. But I digress.
While I believe that all of this is true, it has already had a profound effect on my generation. You find people who have been married for fifty years and now divorce because they can't stand each other. This usually accompanies the retirement of the man of the house. Now he either has no one to boss around or has no hobbies that make his life meaningful. He starts to take his frustrations out on his wife and, eventually, she has had enough.
Being married for fifty years is a direct result of better medicine. Few of my parent's generation reached our age and could still carry on an active and meaningful life. Most were dead by that time. However, medical heroics have left some of us in medical limbo in that we are not well enough to enjoy life to the fullest or lucky enough to die. Some of us lose our independence to our children who have to deal with children at both ends of the family spectrum.
And then there's love. The concept of love is very old and mostly misunderstood. When we are young love is mostly lust. As we grow older, love is mostly reliance and trust. When we are much older love is put to the ultimate test. Love must survive sickness, family problems, financial problems, earthquakes and other natural disasters. It's a product of living a long time and stuff happens.
What absolutely amazes me is that after having been married for fifty years I cannot imagine a world without my wife in it. I guess that's call love--for a better word. The bodies are a bit worn and there has been a lot of water under the bridge. There were good times and not so good times. But throughout it all I never once felt that I faced these things alone. When someone says that his or her spouse is his or her best friend I immediately think of a dog. My wife is, simply, my wife. And I would not want it any other way. Let's try for sixty.
I will not resort to all the old, tired jokes about getting older or Viagra. What surprises me is that the institution of marriage is here at all. When we got married the social norm was not to "live together" for a period in a "tryout" marriage. Dating, courting and marriage were quite straightforward. For the most part it was expected that most marriages would be largely monogamous, that the wife would give up her career to become a stay at home mom and that most families could live quite well on one income.
I'm not going to say that women got smarter. I will put today's women up against anyone from my generation. I will say that women got liberated. I have seen, from the vantage point of my generation, a general retreat from responsibility by men. Men today are less likely to get an university education, are more likely to drop out of school and appear to be focused on the good, unattached, life in a bar. Women, on the other hand have learned that money is power. This has had a profound effect on marriage. In many marriages women out-earn their partners and call most of the shots. Including the decision of staying together. Where women were more economically dependent on their spouses the decision to split usually meant a catastrophic decrease in standard of living by the wife. That's not to say that there were not as many loveless marriages in my generation. Now, women have the education and the economic clout to go their own way.
Just look at the social culture portrayed by mass media. Men are shown as bumbling louts whereas women are generally shown as the stronger partner. Even in commercials, men characters are shown as bumbling when compared to their spouses. Look at the Cialis add. It's usually the woman who makes the advances. Look at the Viagra add. Men look particularly stupid and dance down the street after having had sex. But I digress.
While I believe that all of this is true, it has already had a profound effect on my generation. You find people who have been married for fifty years and now divorce because they can't stand each other. This usually accompanies the retirement of the man of the house. Now he either has no one to boss around or has no hobbies that make his life meaningful. He starts to take his frustrations out on his wife and, eventually, she has had enough.
Being married for fifty years is a direct result of better medicine. Few of my parent's generation reached our age and could still carry on an active and meaningful life. Most were dead by that time. However, medical heroics have left some of us in medical limbo in that we are not well enough to enjoy life to the fullest or lucky enough to die. Some of us lose our independence to our children who have to deal with children at both ends of the family spectrum.
And then there's love. The concept of love is very old and mostly misunderstood. When we are young love is mostly lust. As we grow older, love is mostly reliance and trust. When we are much older love is put to the ultimate test. Love must survive sickness, family problems, financial problems, earthquakes and other natural disasters. It's a product of living a long time and stuff happens.
What absolutely amazes me is that after having been married for fifty years I cannot imagine a world without my wife in it. I guess that's call love--for a better word. The bodies are a bit worn and there has been a lot of water under the bridge. There were good times and not so good times. But throughout it all I never once felt that I faced these things alone. When someone says that his or her spouse is his or her best friend I immediately think of a dog. My wife is, simply, my wife. And I would not want it any other way. Let's try for sixty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)